View Full Version : New Speed Camera Protocol

7006 fan
12th Apr 2005, 17:47
I read in "The Times" today that there are to be mobile units on the M4, positioned on bridges and manned by both regular police and 'civvies'. The purpose is to reduce accidents, the speed at which one could be done is variable but likely to be 79mph but may be as low as 75 (does not say if this lowering would reflect the increase in accidents!!). The article clearly states it is nothing to do with revenue but all to do with safety -My A***.
If it is all to do with safety rather than revenue why not just issue 3 points on the licence!
Yes cane those drivers who do 50mph outside a school, crucify anyone doing 50 in a crowded high street, but on a motorway, come on...
OK I agree the limit is legal 70mph but the number of times I have come close to bashing into some driver in front cos they are doing 50 odd in the middle lane....
Are the Police so incapable of catching villians now, due to the Human Rights legislation and bleeding heart lawyers, so have to further attack the motorist, who is a very easy target and generally pays his dues with a "...fair cop guv you got me..."

12th Apr 2005, 18:02
I spend more time these days watching the speedo than I do looking out the windscreen.

So much for "safer driving".

Even more dangerous on a motorway.

As you say, just an easy target. Real criminals are too difficult for them.

Ahhh! Nice whinge, that! Feel better now!

12th Apr 2005, 18:03
And so we begin........again :rolleyes:

12th Apr 2005, 18:04
Absolutely and as for those b*st*rd spoil sports who reported me for low flying. :}

12th Apr 2005, 18:19
Talking of which have you heard the one about the policeman who used a speedtrap as a jet fighter was flying past....:rolleyes: :}

Onan the Clumsy
12th Apr 2005, 18:25
So I take it from your post that you think that either (1) speeding is acceptable on a motorway (2) the limits should be increased or (3) reducing the speed of traffic has no effect on the accident statistics.

Simple physics state that impact is related to the square of velocity. So reducing speed reduces the impact of a collision, thereby reducing road carnage.

Besides which: It's the law.

12th Apr 2005, 18:27
And so we begin........again
Well soreeeee but I don't live here permanently and I saw a reason for a good stress relieving whinge!

Now I've found another one. :*

12th Apr 2005, 18:45
The same article stated that police patrols will only normally stop cars travelling at over 85mph, so its not all bad.

12th Apr 2005, 19:00

1 - No it isn't.
2 - Yes they should. Speed limits should be appropriate to conditions. For example, reducing speed in fog is appropriate. Travelling at 120mph on an empty motorway (definitions are not at issue here and could be wrought out by far wiser than I) may be appropriate, but would not be so if it were raining.
3 - I agree that inappropriate speed has a huge effect. Taking your argument to the extreme stopping all traffic will prevent all accidents. While true, it removes the point of the invention of transportation methods: to move more, further, in less time.

Yes the energies involved are proportional to the square of the relative velocities, but vehicle safety measures (airbags, compulsory seatbelt wearing etc) dissipate this energy in a far more safe manner than when the limit was initially considered. If the risk was acceptable then, what has changed?

Besides which: It's the law.
The moment "the law" becomes nothing more than a set of rules by which man must live it is no longer a force for justice, and man loses the ability to exercise judgement.

12th Apr 2005, 19:37
I think it's time you switched to decafe and calmed down a little Acbus.

There is a thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169981) (which I notice you contributed to) about almost the exact same thing, from not more than a week ago. Good thing Eal is shrugging his shoulders and not giving a sh*t anymore. :E


12th Apr 2005, 20:16
New points system in Thames Valley.

Heard some classics today, allegedly traffic cops get more points for booking a person not wearing a seatbelt than catching a bail abscondee.

Something along the lines of 5 points for non-wearing of seatbelt compared to 2 points for apprehending bail abscondee. 5 points for a burglar compared to 10 for a mobile, mobile phone user.

I understand this is aimed at traffic cops but I thought they were a general resource rather than to target drivers for - IMHO minor offences.

To be competent have to score 200 points per month?????

Can't find the link despite best googles but definately was correct as a hasty response was issued by Thames Valley Police on the radio.

Always a chestnut subject but I still believe motorists are very easy targets - captive middle class market, unlike the local scabby yobbos who can get away with whatever they want!!

7006 fan
12th Apr 2005, 20:24
Just to make a point here. I consider myself to be a sensible driver. The last time I was in an accident it was due to some pratt trying to cross three lanes of motorway (I had pulled into the middle lane to allow vehicles on safely)
I agree, the law is the law, but when one sees 'orrible little scroats getting away with everything and so many people geting off on a technicality it does tend to make the average driver :yuk:
travelled the M62 the other day, I was doing 75mph other vehicles were overtaking me but no-one was tailgating, driving in an agressive manner, did not see one pedestrian, pram, dog, school bus dropping kids off etc.
However I was also in town and got two fingers from a ped who did not do their green cross code and walked out in front of me, by rights I should have made a citizen's arrest and carted said person off to the local Police station as the ped was breaking the law, 'abuse in a public place'.
OK my other rant
Agressive bicyclists. Bring back the 19th Century Law (and make it encompass skateboards and rollerskates)
"Riding furiously in Public place" -it is true by the way, a chap got 'done' in Cambridge, quite recently!!!
Tht will bring them up with a start! How many times have you had to dodge some pratt in a dayglo hat or silly shades and helmet who shouts
"...get out the way can't you see I'm cycling here!!!" - especially in a pedestrian area where there are signs stating NO CYCLING!! I have seen elderly people terrified by these characters, whatr happens...b all. Excuse, "could not identify, they were gone before we got there etc" and if you get them on camera what happens ...nothing!!!
Watched one of those Police Action things the other night. All these kids being sooooo cool about driving fast and cocking a snoot at authority, that is where the effort needs to be concentrated...not about tagging some poor motorist driving on a nearly empty motorway on a Sunday at 80mph odd. My village has terrible trouble with people riding these 'minibikes' up and down up and down the road, everyone knoows who they are but by reason of retaliation no-one says boo to a goose, therefore they continue to ride and the locals continue to get irate, coz ooo wants a brick through their window?! (who licences these bl**dy things anyway -according to the Highways Act they must be licenced etc as they are petrol driven, the darn things have no practical use... but what the Hell) Sometimes crave for the 'Man running the Manor'
(by the way have not been done so that is not the reason for my invictive, just the English sense of 'fair play' which seems to have disappeared in the multicultural society we now exist in, the fair play now appears to depend upon the Human Right and Lawyer's opinion!!!)
Ooooh that was better than 20 minutes in the gym

12th Apr 2005, 20:24
In most forces in the UK the "official" regulation for booking someone for speeding is as follows.

Speed Limit + 10% + 2 mph.

Therefore 70mph limit, you can NOT be booked for speeding at anything LESS than 79 MPH. etc


12th Apr 2005, 20:30
mikedurward - no leeway from now on, can get pulled for 72, or 73 on the motorway.

Damn, I wish I could find a link.

Found it


12th Apr 2005, 20:32
but vehicle safety measures (airbags, compulsory seatbelt wearing etc) dissipate this energy in a far more safe manner
Aaaah, that's OK then - the ambulance is firmly parked at the bottom of the cliff.....:ok:

...run screaming for the hills...... :{

12th Apr 2005, 20:44
To be pulled for 72 or 73 is IMPOSSIBLE! ! ! ! !

Car makers can NOT make speedos to be that accurate. The manufacturing spec says no more that 10% over !!!!!!!!!!!


12th Apr 2005, 20:50
Revenue generating, accident creating "safety cameras". I've seen two accidents caused by speed cameras on motorways both involving drivers braking heavily on spotting a camera and being rear-ended by one of the vehicles that are forced into "bunching" behind.

They DO NOT enhance road safety, the DO generate huge income for each and every Police force in the country and they ARE yet another tax on the British motorist!

Raise the speed limit on motorways to 80 and let us get on with driving without fear for our wallets, licences and rear-ends! After all, cars with modern brakes are much better at stopping from high speeds than they were when the 70 limit was introduced.

<<Ducking now, preparing for incoming from the tree huggers!>>

12th Apr 2005, 20:56

Again - on my part not corraborated but relating facts as heard today, agree with your thinking.

Don't forget the onus these days is to prove your innocence after the event.

Sorry but I feel very strongly about current policing policies, both traffic and local, i.e. CID investigations and priority ascribed to what is important, to report, for adhering to Government guidelines. This compared to what is factually effective to the vast majority of us that pay the wages.

Onan the Clumsy
12th Apr 2005, 20:58
You're exactly right of course. Speed cameras are nothing but a revenue generting device and are dangerous to boot.

Speed is not the problem, it's inappropriate speed, and alcohol, and road rage, and sleepyness. In fact if anything a fast and steady moving traffic flow is a lot safer than stop and go traffic.

The blatant hypocrisy of the police forces that use these devices makes my blood boil. It would be one thing if they used the money to actually catch some criminals, but we'll have a 90mph limit before THAT happens. :*

Windy Militant
12th Apr 2005, 22:38
One possible reason that they've decided to do this is that this particular stretch of the M4 seems to be rather prone to accidents. There have been two accidents involving car transporters in the last month. The latest overturned and shed three new cars into the opposite carriageway, fortunately no serious injuries in either case.
I've travelled along this stretch fairly regularly over the last ten years or so and I can't figure why there are so many accidents. There are no really tight curves or bad junctions like some of the older sections of motorway, sometimes the stretch from Hungerford to Membury can be prone to fog, but most of the accidents appear to happen in clear conditions. There have been rumblings in the local press about this for a while so maybe the police felt obliged to be seen to be doing something about it.
Oh yes and possibly the money would be useful to pay for the Palace of Glittering Delights they've just had built next to Sainsburys on the A420 ;)

12th Apr 2005, 23:18
1) Mr Durward, I refer you to a company called STACK that make speedos exactly as accurate as 2-3 mph that are fitted to all modern Lotus'. I think the quoted min accuracy is 1% (or 0.7 mph). Also, if nobody makes a speedo this accurate, how can the police follow you with a dash cam and do you from the speedo for being over the limit. Simply not true..

2) The square of the velocity is only proportional to the impact damage if you "actually" hit someone. The problem with the roads in the UK is that people don't drive at an appropriate distance, not an appropriate speed. I challange you all to disagree. You know you can't......

Might have ranted about this before, sorry....



Big Tudor
12th Apr 2005, 23:25

Not a tree hugger but
and being rear-ended by one of the vehicles that are forced into "bunching" behind.
That will be an accident caused by the following driver failing to keep a safe distance from the car in front then. This situation has nothing to do with the presence of a speed camera.

We have had this debate on JB many times before. The argument always centres around "I'm a good driver, why can't I drive at 90mph on the motorway?" Basically for two reasons.
1) The motorway speed limit in the UK is 70mph (unless otherwise indicated). Whether you like it or not, that is how it is. Some people happen to think that cavorting naked down Guildford high street is acceptable, it is still against the law.
2) Who says you are a good driver? In my humble opinion, a lot of very bad drivers think they are actually very good behind the wheel. The character of Raymond in the film Rainman also thought he was a very good driver.

16 blades
12th Apr 2005, 23:46
I've travelled along this stretch fairly regularly over the last ten years or so and I can't figure why there are so many accidents.

So have I, I know it very well, and I CAN explain it. It is in fact, very, very simple.

The reason for so many accidents here is the same reason for 95% of all motorway accidents - TAILGATING.

The speed you drive at on a motorway is IRRELEVANT, as long as your speed RELATIVE TO OTHER VEHICLES isnt grossly excessive.

What is VITAL is your distance from the vehicle in front - this stretch of motorway gets very busy during rush hour, and the traffic bunches up, leaving no room for safety.

Most of the accidents on this stretch happen at well below the speed limit, due to sheer traffic density, as do 90% of all motorway accidents.

Since speed cameras cannot combat tailgating, their installation on this stretch of motorway will not reduce accidents one iota - hence they are simply there to raise revenue.

Big Tudor,
This situation has nothing to do with the presence of a speed camera.
I couldn't have put it better myself. What is implicit in this statement is that the presence of a speed camera will have ZERO effect on this type of accident.

Now, refute THAT if you can, tree-hugging lefties.


Big Tudor
12th Apr 2005, 23:52

The speed cameras will not raise one cent of revenue if drivers do not exceed the published speed limit of 70mph. Just as the hundreds of other cameras in the UK would be pointless if people drove at or below the published speed limit. Whether we agree with the limits or not, exceeding them is not the best way of campaigning to get them changed.

16 blades
13th Apr 2005, 00:15
...Except they will, Tudor.

On roads where revenue has fallen, they have progressively and artificially lowered speed limits to ridiculous levels to get it back.

They will do the same with motorways and other high-capacity roads until we are all driving everywhere at 30mph, or we just all grind to a halt.

You cannot argue about breaking speed limits, the majority of people's problems with speed cameras stem from the lies and warped statistics that they are being 'sold' to the public with, and the dirty tricks like that mentioned above.


13th Apr 2005, 03:31
the DO generate huge income for each and every Police force in the country and
I've asked this question before but not had a definite answer yet. Could someone please confirm for me that this is the case? I always thought that all fines from all offences went to Treasury whether they were from traffic or any other fineable offence.

What is the truth of it please ... do traffic offence fines actually go to the police forces? Does anyone know??

7006 fan
13th Apr 2005, 05:50
Agree wholeheartedly with the 'tailgating' thread.
Was on the Motorway yesterday and began braking as the car in front of the car in front had put their brakes on (I usually watch what is going on a couple of cars ahead), I was braking before the person in front had begun braking, the vehicle behind me was getting ready to do something immoral with my exhaust-pipe! and began flashing me -patience is a virtue- many of us forget on the roads today.
About 5 years ago I was terrified out of my wits on the M1 near Northampton; where the 'keep 2 chevrons apart' are. Iit was dark and drizzling, approximately 6pm on a Friday, the road was packed but all moving at about 60mph, I was keeping the 2 chevrons distance and had nowhere to go, (I was drving a 106 at the time- about as safe as a wet paper bag!) behind me was a 7.5T lorry, when I say I behind, I mean behind -I thought he was in my boot! He was constantly flashing me to get a move on, I was followed for about three miles and all I could see in my rearview mirror was a grille, in the wing mirrors headlights on full beam. What use would a speed camera have been there.
I pulled in at the next service station and puked up. (If I had had to brake suddenly for whatever reason, I would have been 'creamed', driving at less than 70mph fat lot of good a 'gatso' would have been.
Could have taken his reg number and reported him but would there have been any point -his word against mine and it would not get anywhere anyhow, a waste of Police time.


13th Apr 2005, 06:12

I am shocked that you could even think that the police or county might make money from this. Dear me no, every penny after expenses goes to the Treasury consolidated fund.

But..... We live in the age of quangoes and spun off agencies.

Under the present scheme each County and their police force have set up a partnership. The partnership is allowed to retain such funds as are needed for running costs and the purchase of new equipment.

In the year 2003-2004 the total receipts from fines was 112.2 million, the 35 partnerships claimed for an expenditure of 91.8 million, the remaining 20.4 million going to the Treasury.

So, you see, the Counties and the police made nothing...........


Loose rivets
13th Apr 2005, 06:28
Check your speedo with GPS. You should find that it never under reads, and is only a tad over. That's a technical term.

As one who used to travel from Tottenham to LGW at night, on almost deserted streets, I find it difficult to imagine what the solution is to these frustrations. We have to improve safety, but not by drivers staring at the clock half the time.

Safe driving is all about observation and anticipation.

I have been a lover of hot cars and big bikes since the fifties, but now any attempt to relive my youth proves futile. In a pointy turbo charged thing, I imagined that I would have some fun in the dead of night after a flight. Not anymore. Pooling along just over the speed limit, I'm consistently overtaken by lorries... no ‘open' roads to let rip on.

A multi tier licence is the only way I can think of getting people to take a pride in their driving. You don't get to own the good kit until you have the experience and pass an advanced test. But what would be the point if you earn the right to go at say 15mph more than someone else, when white van man passes you at a 100 mph and probably hasn't got a licence anyway.

I make the last comment not entirely in jest. How could these guys have a licence when they so flagrantly speed 24/7 ? Don't they ever get caught?:confused:

13th Apr 2005, 07:29
Thanks, ORAC ... I'd seen these "partnerships" mentioned and didn't know what they were either. So, if you get a camera fine in the U.K. the cheque is made directly to the relevant police force or "partnership" and they then collect what they believe is required for costs and any balance goes to Treasury. Got it.

It's different here where all fines just go to State Govt. (Dept. Finance) although I may need to be corrected on that because it's a few years now since my last camera fine.

Thanks for that info.

13th Apr 2005, 07:43
Good thing Eal is shrugging his shoulders and not giving a sh*t anymore.
Yup. I've taken the Road Safety Partnership view. They don't give a solitary sh*t about reducing speeding, so I've given up.

Though I will say one thing. If lorries are involved in these accidents, then there is a good chance that speed isn't the issue.

Onan the Clumsy
13th Apr 2005, 12:17
Maybe not with lorries, but with cars, it's a published statistic that speeding is a contributory factor in 83% of all accidents on arterial thoroughfares.

Clear roads are often the most dangerous too as they lull a driver into a false sense of security and any obstruction that appears, appears suddenly and when reaction times are already lengthened.

Speed limits are not set by the police. They are set by engineers after extensive study and are often specific for a particular stretch of road.

There's no doubt about it, speed cameras have already save many thousands of lives.

13th Apr 2005, 12:23
To be pulled for 72 or 73 is IMPOSSIBLE! ! ! ! !

No it isn't.

Speeding is an absolute offence. 71 mph in a 70 limit is illegal and you can be done for this. Try going to court and saying I admit I was doing 75, but you can't have me for doing under 79. £60 + 3 points + costs a few seconds later - guaranteed

EU regulations require that a speedometer may not under-read. Therefore is your speedo says 70 mph, you will be actually doing slightly less and therefore safe from prosecution.

There is absolutely nothing about not being able to be booked at less that limit + 10% + 2. This is ised as a guideline by most forces, but has no force in law.

13th Apr 2005, 12:33
Here in Australia you can and will be 'done' for being just three(3) KILOMETERS PER HOUR over the limit!

State governments, (currently a big joke), budget for huge amounts from speed cameres to balance their budget.

13th Apr 2005, 12:33
Maybe not with lorries, but with cars, it's a published statistic that speeding is a contributory factor in 83% of all accidents on arterial thoroughfares


The Road Research Laboratory's figures (which I would tend to trust above anything issued by Govt or Scamera partnerships) state 4% of accidents are due to excessive speed.

Practically, speed is a contributory factor in 100% of accidents as two stationary vehicles can't collide!

13th Apr 2005, 12:35
Speed limits are not set by the police. They are set by engineers after extensive study and are often specific for a particular stretch of road.
I know I shouldn't, but.....

The road outside my office was a single carriageway road and had a National Speed limit, i.e. 60mph.

After many months of work, the road has been widened, visibility improved and resurfaced. It now has two sets of traffic lights, clearly visible from a significant distance, plus has been widened to two lanes in both directions. Yet the speed limit has been cut. To 30mph. If the "engineers" decided that, they are admitting that they have done a p*ss poor job on the redesign.

And how do engineers suddenly decide that a straight stretch of dual carriageway can only support 50mph, not the previous 70mph? Especially when such a decision occurs at the same time that a camera appears.

So much for me not giving a sh*t!

Speeding is an absolute offence. 71 mph in a 70 limit is illegal and you can be done for this.
The local paper has seen the spokeswoman for the Lancashire camera bunch say that this is NOT TRUE. Then again, I don't trust anything she says as it mostly involves slagging car drivers off.

Volmet South
13th Apr 2005, 12:41
it's a published statistic that speeding is a contributory factor in 83% of all accidents

.... much in the same way that altitude is a factor in aviation incidents :rolleyes: The Transport and Road Research Lab have independently stated the figure is 12%

I have witnessed two crashes (one of them fatal) and the causes were alcohol and due care and attention. A bright yellow revenue collection box would have prevented neither. Per mile driven we share the lowest accident rate in Europe along with Sweden so the safety arguement for cameras is extremely weak.

As for the old arguement that the law is the law is the law. It is also the law that a Hackney Carriage is still obliged to keep a bale of hay in the boot for the horse. :confused: The police would be better employed checking insurance documents which would reduce the costs for everyone else. :ok:

Curious Pax
13th Apr 2005, 13:12
Has any research been done into the effect of the variable speed limit in place on the southwest part of the M25? I don't go that way often, but my perception is that it has improved things from stop/go to a more constant (albeit not very fast) speed during busy periods. No doubt it still all stops sometimes, but it used to be stop/go every time I went there anytime near the rush hour.

They seem to be installing something similar on the M42 between the M6 and M40, although I don't think it is in use yet, which would suggest that some positive results have been had with the idea.

Regardless of its effectiveness, it appears that all the pre-publicity about it catching all offenders when it was put in place a few years ago had some effect, as people seem to largely stick to the limits as they change. I think that is at the heart of speeding (and much else that is complained about in these parts) - law and punishment has little effect on peoples behaviour; it is the chances of being caught that dictate things.

I normally drive at 90mph on a motorway, conditions permitting (though I would admit that my conditions may not be as rigorous as some would impose on themselves). I have been doing this for 20 years, but have not yet had a ticket or a camera flash at me. Why? Because I keep a good look out, and slowdown when I see the police in the area - which isn't often on the motorways I usually drive (M5, M6, M6 toll, M60). Same on non motorways (although I don't drive as fast I am usually a bit over the limit if that limit is 40+). I wouldn't be pleased if I did get nabbed at 90, but accept that it is a chance I take, and would have no room for complaint.

Speed cameras are now a fact of life, so getting used to spotting them and slowing down is the best way round the limit. If you can't drive with a sufficient level of awareness to do that then you probably shouldn't be going over the limit anyway!

Anyway, who said things are getting worse? You used to get hung for stealing a sheep!

13th Apr 2005, 13:14
Speeding is an absolute offence. 71 mph in a 70 limit is illegal and you can be done for this.

The local paper has seen the spokeswoman for the Lancashire camera bunch say that this is NOT TRUE. Then again, I don't trust anything she says as it mostly involves slagging car drivers off

Luckily for us then that scamera partnerships don't make the law. They only enforce it (and usually consider themselves above it when it comes to due process).

13th Apr 2005, 13:17
Dear all,

The simple way around this is to fit speed limiters to all cars.

Keeps the speed at proper level without the constant looking at the speedo.

Problem solved - no more accidents.



Send Clowns
13th Apr 2005, 13:18
it's a published statistic that speeding is a contributory factor in 83% of all accidents This is a statistic that is so clearly made up that it is ludicrous. As previously pointed out the absolute statistic is 100%, so someone decides the cutoff as to importance of speed to include int he statistics. That decision defines the result from 0%-100%, as speed is always a factor but never the sole factor. So whoever chooses the cutoff chooses the statistic.


Those limits do actually improve flow (for good reasons that are too involved or quick debate as an aside) and therefore average speeds, so are good for road users and the environment.

13th Apr 2005, 13:19
No matter how fast you drive, there's always someone who wants to drive faster. Discuss.

People who spend their lives in the fast lane invariably miss their turn-off.

Most drivers who speed do so safely. After all, any speed in excess of stationary is potentially dangerous. Has anyone ever computed how many car journeys are made every day? I bet most accident statistics would pale into insignificance when compared with the number of safely completed journeys.

Speed cameras will catch 5-6 million motorists or more this year. Sounds a lot. I reckon 2 million are untaxed, unregistered vehicles, 3 million are repeat offenders leaving a small balance who are newly caught. It's not many really.

Buy a car with cruise control. I have and it is great but should be renamed speed control. Set it for the current speed restriction and you can concentrate on the road, not the speedo. Much safer, and much more relaxing, and not illegal, yet!

I have not yet been caught speeding, largely because I don't.

However, I have no doubt that I will eventually be caught. In the meantime, I take great delight in slowing down to about 20mph whenever I spot the distinctive white van at the side of the road in our local 30mph zones. It does two things - removes the concentration of the camera operator who probably makes some disparaging remarks about me, and causes traffic behind to back up quickly, but within the speed limit so no-one gets nicked. Speed restrictions are a limit, not a target to achieve at any cost.

Lastly - thanks for reading this far (ZZZZzzzzzz) - but why do people speed in the first place? Is it the herding instinct where you must find another motorist up ahead to latch on to at any cost, or is it the old competitive spirit that "drives" people to get to the front of the queue at any cost? Discuss this too, if you like.

13th Apr 2005, 13:23
A few years ago. One unlucky guy on a motorbike was caught diong 163 MPH on the M4.
In court the police admitted that the guy WAS NOT riding dangerously because there was no traffic around and he was in complete control of his vehicle and riding it WITHIN HIS capabilities.

Speed is not dangerous. SOME CAR DRIVES MAKE THE ROADS UNSAFE !!!!!!!!!!


13th Apr 2005, 16:00
Some valid points put forward here, amongst the "don't speed and no accidents will happen" numpties.


7006 fan
13th Apr 2005, 21:00
Speed cameras do not catch the pratt who crosses 3 lnes of motorway at the last minute to get to their junction.
Speed cameras do not catch the TWOCer (taking without owner consent i.e. villains).
Speed cameras do not catch peds who walk into the road without looking.
Speed cameras do not catch tail-gaters
Speed cameras do not catch muggers, rapists, burglars, fraudsters, murderers, drug dealers.

I had a notifaction through today. My vehicle is off the road for repair so filled in for SORN, got a reply from DVLA:( (paraphrasing)"...if your vehicle is not off the road you will be fined up to £5k and imprisoned..." -enforce that to the local drug dealing slag -as if!
Face it folks, we are the wilderbeest; plenty of us, vulnerable, adhere to similar patterns day in and day out, guaranteed that on that day a lion will be in the long grass waiting to pounce... because we all know lions like an easy meal if they can find it!!!


Doors to Automatic
13th Apr 2005, 21:44
Speeding is not dangerous - causing an accident is.

Shame the Police do not attach as much importance to catching burglars, muggers, murderers etc. Being the lazy, unaccountable criminal-loving* layabouts that they are it doesn't surprise me anymore.

(* If a burglar beats me up in my own house all I would get is a crime number - if they can be bothered to turn up, if I beat up a burglar they would come down on me like a ton of bricks)

Onan the Clumsy
13th Apr 2005, 21:52
Speeding is not dangerous - catching a criminal is.

You're exactly right. It's outrageous that the police hide behind the veil of so called public safety when it's obvious to anyone that all they are doing is maintaining a revenue stream.

It would be one thing if they used the money to improve the roads, even make them safer. I'd even settle for putting it into a general catching criminals fund, but who knows where it really goes? Probably the xmas panto :*

14th Apr 2005, 07:40
if your vehicle is not off the road you will be fined up to £5k and imprisoned
Utter rubbish! Drive without tax and you be lucky to get a fine of more than £100!

Doors to Automatic, point of order, the majority of speed cameras are operated by non-police Partnerships. However, I understand your point.

Onan, regretably these days "road improvements" generally make things much worse! Again, the road outside my office is a good example. It is not yet fully open, but the manner of its design practically ensures that when it is, it is an accident waiting to happen. People have already raised concerns to be met with complete silence from the local authority.

14th Apr 2005, 10:31
Anyone else live near Windsor? And see for the Royal Wedding the "security" arrangements?

I think Saturday April 9th, Windsor had more mobile speed cameras per square foot, than anywhere else in the world.

Of course, if I was planning to terrorise the event I would fill a car with a bomb and drive at 120mph down the Windsor Relief road, and wouldn't drive slow and incognito!

What authorities are getting away with under the banner of Securty is disgusting.


I also find it funny that Police Forces are clamping down on speed to speeds WITHIN the tolerance band of the speedometer. So do you really know how fast you are going.

Anyone know the actual regs? My understanding is at 30mph the Speedometer can read -3mph/+0mph, but outside of this it is +/-10%. Is that correct?

14th Apr 2005, 10:36
My understanding is at 30mph the Speedometer can read -3mph/+0mph
Don't think so, assuming I've understood you correctly.

Driving past a speed awareness sign (one of those which flash your speed at you) with the needle of my speedo at 30, the sign flashed 27mph at me.

14th Apr 2005, 10:52

What it means is that if your speedo is showing 30 it could be anything from 27-30mph.

As someone posted earlier your speedo must not underread but it can overread.



14th Apr 2005, 12:32
Coming from a small island where there is no speed limit I find it hard to come to terms with speed cameras. Thankfully they havent made over here. God help us all if it happens!

A few years ago when over in the UK I used to see many traffic patrols on the motorways. How many do you see on motorways now? Answer is very few, because it seems to me that they can put up a camera and get you that way (Easy money) rather than having the patrols. But does the camera detect that you are driving in a manner which is unsafe or does it know you have no seatbelt on etc... Can it pull you over and have a chat about what it is you have done wrong? It would seem that putting cameras in is cheaper than keeping and training up traffic officers and running the vehicles.

Speed is not the only factor which causes accidents there are far more issues to hand which need the attention of traffic cops. How many people out there have vehicles which are not roadworthy? There is the issue of tailgating too not to mention many more. But it seems that the government is targeting the general motorist who uses the car to get from A to B. I dread to think what would happen if everyone was loking inside their cars looking at speedos worrying that if they went over 75MPH they would be fined and pointed!

Putting speed cameras in doesnt really work as they are in fixed locations where we all get to know about. we all slow down, pass the camera and speed up again. I am aware that there are mobile ones too but there is the same effect. We know about them slow down and speed up again!!!

I am all in favour of a variable speed limit I think that it would work quite well. Above all the best way forward would be to educate drivers. I for one have completed advanced training for both car and motorcycle and instruct on motorcycles. Having said that i really benefitted from the training and it reallly opened my eyes to better standards or motoring.

Happy motoring and hope money making flashes dont get you!


14th Apr 2005, 12:36
3legs, that's the most sensible post I've seen. :ok:

14th Apr 2005, 12:47
The continental practice of having different speed limits for wet and dry conditions seems eminently logical and sensible.

ou Trek dronkie
14th Apr 2005, 13:04
Quite agree, if you can't rant on JB, where can you rant ?

7006 fan

I know that experience, it's a horrible feeling. In Italy, so many do it, I think they are taught the technique at driving school.

I once had one of these maniacs flash up behind me when I was overtaking another car and he was, I kid you not, about 4-6" from me. Flashing, gesticulating, the full nine yards. If I had even touched the brake lights, well, I dunno.

Take note all Ppruners who venture into Italy. They are MAD, MAD I say.

overstressed Tired driver

(but feel better for the rant of course)

14th Apr 2005, 13:08
Agree that tailgaters should be taken off and strung up by their knackers especially that porsche that was trying to get up my exhaust pipe last night AND flashing me, what a [email protected]!!

I heard not long ago that they were introducing tailgating cameras on the M6, does anybody out there in JB land know if it's true?

Send Clowns
14th Apr 2005, 13:21
When my car is in a rough condition (I alwasy buy second hand and run until sub-economic) it is so tempting just to stop in front of a tailgater. I only don't because of the risk to him/her and others around - at 30 or 40 mph I'm sure I would be safe from being hit up the rear. Would love to show them the logical consequences of their crap driving!

14th Apr 2005, 14:13

I had an incident about 7 years ago where at a set of traffic lights a guy who had been tailgating me for several miles decided I was not moving off quickly enough and rammed into me forcing me into the car in front.

The car behind then proceeded to mount the kerb on the inside and use the pavement to get into clear traffic and then legging it away.

The sheer shock of all that witnessed that meant that no one got the buggers licence plate number.

At least I had several witnesses for the insurance write up.



Irish Steve
14th Apr 2005, 14:35
Long time ago in my home town, I was being heavily tailgated by a Fiat, one of the little high performance sporty jobs. We were stopped by lights in the middle of the centre, and as we pulled away, I decided that it was time the said Fiat driver was given a shock, as I knew EXACTLY what he was planning, and also knew that he didn't know what I was about to do.:E:E

Our estate is a right turn about 250 yds from the lights, and at that time, it had its own right turn lane.

So, I moved off the lights at a good pace, pulled into the right turn lane, and instantly put on right turn signal and hit brakes, HARD.

CRUNCH. Fiat sails up a**e end of Cavalier, and makes perfect contact with tow ball.:ok:

Get out to review incident, comfortable in the knowleddge that as I live in the estate that is accessed by the right turn, I'm in the clear, as the Fiat driver was not turning, he'd pulled into the right turn lane to overtake me, and been well and truly caught by me pulling into the lane to turn:D

Local police car happens to pass, takes details, and smiles very big grin, and comments "Ah, at least we know what he's driving again!"

The Fiat driver's comment as he was leaving was something like "not the most intelligent of places to test the brakes". My comment " Iwasn't testing the brakes, I was wiping my a**e"

The significance was lost on me until later, when I read the details more clearly.

I'd "collected" an Irish Formula 1 racing driver on the rear of my vehicle:E :E

Damage to Fiat, about 1000 worth. damage to the cavalier, a bent towbar electrics socket.

14th Apr 2005, 14:43
Irish Steve:

Which proves what I have long thought - racing drivers are largely immature petrol heads that are incapable of leaving their bad habits on the race track. Spectators of said motor-sport, whether of the two or four-wheeled variety seem to be of similar ilk.

This is well illustrated by the total arses riding on our local roads before and after a biking event at Donington Park.

Irish Steve
14th Apr 2005, 16:12
Which proves what I have long thought - racing drivers are largely immature petrol heads that are incapable of leaving their bad habits on the race track. Spectators of said motor-sport, whether of the two or four-wheeled variety seem to be of similar ilk.

So true:)

That incident was quite useful, in that the local law got to know what EI was driving that year, so they were able to "lean" on him some, which meant he had to behave better.

As you say, totally immature, in that 250 yds before the impact, I knew I was going to collect him, where it was going to happen, and how. I have to admit that at the time, I was surprised, but watching him in action subsequently, I realised that he was as erratic on the track as he was off it, which is probably why he retired when he did.

simon brown
14th Apr 2005, 17:12
Speed camera debate. Hmmmm I wonder how different this will be to the other 5000000 there have been on this site surprise suprprise ...no difference at all...Yawwwwwwwn

I predict the next speed camera debate will conform to the following format

1) initial copied report from a web site

2) someone sets ball rolling by complaining about how they are for raising revenue and not about safety and that his 5000bhp BMW has safety gizmos and hes a safe driver

3) a fluffy willl come back calling them a petrol head and that cameras are there for a reason and that whatever the govermment do is right

4) A copper will come on and state its the standard of driving not speed that kills and that if you had to pull bodies from car etc etc

5) Someone who races cars will come up with all the boring technical details about car handling qualities, breaking systems and go into the minuitia or tyre compounds re breaking distances with /without ABS and about how terrific a driver they are

6) a magistrate willl comment about their pragmatic attitude and that rules is rules even if it means wearing a traffic cone on your head during shrove Tuesday and the rules are there to be obeyed.

7) it will then degenerate into a general flaming session and eveyone giving details of every traffic camera in their vicinity, and every accident theyve been in that wasnt their fault

7006 fan
14th Apr 2005, 19:50
EAL 401,
FYI, I quote verbatim from the DVLA document:

"Do not use your vehicle or keep it on a public road while the SORN is in force. If you do, the maximum penalty is a £5,000 fine and imprisonment"

maybe the DVLA like issuing letters as a wind-up but somehow I doubt it.

maybe this is a bit of legislation no-one is aware of but I have it here in black and white!
Hope the garage that is repairing my car does not leave it on the road!


Onan the Clumsy
14th Apr 2005, 20:10
That earlier story illustrates exactly why speed cameras should be even more widespread. That accident was caused by one thing pure and simple: the guy behind was speeding. If there had been a camera present, he would have seen it, slowed down and avoided a thousand pound accident. Simple really.

Irish Steve
14th Apr 2005, 21:18
If there had been a camera present, he would have seen it, slowed down and avoided a thousand pound accident. Simple really

In this case, no he wouldn't. He was and is well known for being irresponsible on the roads, in this case, he was using a right turn lane in a 30 Mph zone to overtake another vehicle. A camera would have made no difference, the other problem being that Ireland has very few camera bases, and even fewer camera heads to go in them, so the chances of getting your picture taken are slim to none, even if you pass them many times a day.

A while back, Ireland introduced penalty points for things like speeding. One individual managed to run up the 12 needed for a disqualification in less than a month. Wasn't helped by administrative screw ups that meant she didn't get any of the notices until they all arrived together, but that's the way it is here, after an initial reduction in speeds and accidents, the old habits are coming back on line again, and unfortunately, as they are so rare, a flash from a camera is once again regarded as just a bit of bad luck.

ou Trek dronkie
14th Apr 2005, 21:33
Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!

I really enjyed that.


Can't stop giggling (which tells you something about me, I know, I know, I know, I know)

14th Apr 2005, 22:42
Went down a certain "A" road between Staffs and Derbys.... Including the "Zonal" digicams, it averaged one speed camera per 11/2 miles . [One village ad THREE cameras :mad: ] However, there were signs [NOT National Speed Limit ones] "advising" one of the new speed limit [including numbers on the road] BUT on the grass verges were the "National" signs giving a, a higher limit... or b, the "National" limit...WIHIH? :confused:

15th Apr 2005, 09:38
You're a funny lot. You all squeal "rank irresponsible flying take his pilot's licence away" at all sorts of relatively minor infringements but when it comes to the holy cow of the car.... How many people have been killed by low flying joy riders? Go on, as you drive home tonight count wayside shrines with their pathetic bunches of flowers. In this country we suffer an average of two thousand road deaths a year. Add to that the injuries and economic costs of RTAs.

I know your arguments and yes it is easier to police a few aircraft but remember that the rules of the air are aimed at the lowest common denominator and you accept that. The same goes for the rules of the road. You cannot say "it's ok for me because I am a highly skilled highly experienced driver" and then expect the muppets to drive slower because they aren't. Having my "driving pleasure" reduced is the price I pay for trying to keep the idiots under control. I love speed but I have never complained at being caught and I have been caught several times. Served me right.

As for the the road fund rules they were brought about to make Daily Mail readers think that something was being done about chavs without tax or insurance. Ah of course now I see it. Rules are for chavs not pilots who aren't allowed to fly like Battle of Britain heros.

Remember the most dangerous drivers on the road really know how to handle their machines, or think they do. That is what makes them dangerous.

15th Apr 2005, 11:41

And pray tell how many cameras have caught your so called "joy riders"? Joy riding is nicking someone else's car and running about in it at high speed / trashing it, is it not? This is JUST the point - they might be caught speeding in someone else's car, but it wouldn't be them who received the notification, they wouldn't be arrested because there aren't enough of the boys in blue on the roads.

Yes, cameras catch speeders. But it isn't the only vehicle related crime and nor is it the most dangerous - I'd say somebody 3 times over the drink drive limit would take that honour - like the bloke who crashed into a petrol station in Lincolnshire, setting himself on fire in the process (see the beeb) because he was 3 times over the limit (and being chased by the boys in blue - and it's all their fault according to his missus). Would a speed camera have prevented that? Erm, no.

15th Apr 2005, 12:29
You aren't addressing my points at all.

15th Apr 2005, 13:54
Well in my extensive experience the ones who are the most confident are the ones who come a cropper. Skill breeds confidence. The safest ones are those who believe that they aren't that good and that some moron is coming the other way.

I feel sorry for you young uns. When I started driving there was real freedom of the road. When I first did a ton it really felt like it. I also reckon that because cars were so unsafe we drove better. If there was a spike instead of an airbag maybe people would drive better.

15th Apr 2005, 14:24
Dear all,

The thing that saddens me the most is that the ability to reduce the number of road accidents by a huge percentage already exists.

But since it would be unpopular it will be a long time coming.

What do I speak of you ask?

Well several items come to mind.

1) Speed limiters.
2) Compulsory re-testing on a 5 year basis
3) Alcohol/Drug sensitive immobilisers
4) Better designed cars to deal with accidents.

These are just some of the ways of cutting deaths on our roads.

As for those who complain about the use of Speed Cameras to raise revenue, so? Do not speed and they will make no money.

Rules are there for everyone.

You do the crime then do the time and do not come crying about it later.



7006 fan
15th Apr 2005, 18:34
Tend to agree with Bill Hicks Rules, there are ways to limit the speed of vehicles and stop people D-D'ing, I understand a breathalyser immobiliser is now a mandatory fitting in Sweden, most probably get shouted down in UK as an invasion of Human Rights or some such c**p.
Sort of agree with Effortless crossply tyres and floating rear suspension were 'fun' but the camera can catch you unawares a momentary lapse on the speedo dial and...whump 3 points, that is my beef with GATSO's, they take no account of how one is driving in general these things catch you fair and square.
Saw a prog about villains the other day, one of them was an absconder from bail conditions so had broken the law yes? some petty crook who had burgled 'x' number of homes, but his picture could not be shown as he had not been to Court so he could not be identified!!!
Takes me back to my earlier thread point, IF these are safety cameras then issue the 3 points but no fine, the three points might in some cases mean a loss of livelihood. What could that mean to a family?!!!

I despair at the legal system in this country

15th Apr 2005, 18:47
Driving is as serious as crime. Lets face it there are more deaths on the road than there are murders. But the problem isn't with the camera but the mandatory penalty. These are arbitrary and take no account of circumstances. The same goes for parking in most parts of this country. I really miss Traffic wardens with yellow hats. At least you could talk to them and if you didn't agree you went to court. Nowadays you can lose your car and only have the option of the high court to get redress. I got sixty parking tickets while legally parked in London. It took well over one hundred and twenty letters to resolve and then they said that I was in the wrong but they would let me off.

Mandatory penalties are unfair whether for speeding or for murder.

15th Apr 2005, 19:35
Well boys and girls, this has really generated some heat, and the gnashing of teeth can be heard in Luxembourg. But you can bet you lives that those who serve to represent us all in lofty places will not hear.

But not one person has come up with any useful ideas to defeat the camera menace. There is however, another angle to the scourge on our road system!!!

What about the ridiculous speed limits imposed on lorry drivers on single carriageway roads.......40mph. I actually do drive artics, and normally I'll push my speed up to a still safe, but reasonable speed of 50mph. Why, I here some ask! Well I can tell you that at 40mph on a windy road, the car drivers very quickly bunch up, and you have to see to believe some of the maniac overtaking manoeuvres cars drivers make in an effort to get past. It just so happens that at 40mph, apart from being ridiculously slow, it puts most cars in an uncomfortable speed range where it is dificult to find a suitable gear, so constant gear shifting occurs. And that is where so much danger lies, because even a weak lifeless 1.1ltr Fiesta can give the impression of urgency when a gear is dropped at such low speed. And that's when the chancers make their gambles. I have so often seen in my mirrors the bodykitted 1.3ltr coolhatch pull out, initially accelerate well until about halfway along my lorry length and then the weezy limits of his machine become obvious. And what can I do as a lorry driver? Maintain a predictable speed and hope he or she doesn't wipe out an innocent family coming the other way.

I really believe that a HGV limit of 50 for single carriageway roads would make sooo much sense. For a start the car drivers don't get quite so agitated at 50 because it is a more acceptable speed, plus the weezy 1.3ltrs are less likely to impress their owners into thinking they can do what ferraris do.

So, lorry drivers, who rely on thier licences to work are more at risk than most. Did you realise that there are certain cameras out there that can detect a HGV at 40mph but ignore the cars.

Now before I propose an active campaign against these hateful things, let me make one thing absolutely clear:

In towns and villages they are an absolute necessity for the safety of the people in those places. They are also good news on particularly dangerous stretches of road, so again no complaints there. BUT, we all know that most of these camera are sited on perfectly safe roads, but where speeding is likely to occur................. (Revenue).

And now my Grand Plan of Action:

I am going to propose to all those HGV drivers and hauliers, that for a week, during the August bank holiday, every lorry wherever possible uses single carriageway raods and stick rigidly to the 40mph limit. This really is protest by the most legal means possible, and hopefully it will cause so much chaos that even the politicians will sit up and take note. It is a frightening prospect in some ways, but if it increases the HGV limit to 50mph, even if just for a trial period on certain roads, it will have served its purpose.

If I am wrong in all my assumptions, and the roads actually run more smoothly, more safely, with less road rage, and calmer drivers during that week, then more lorry drivers will have saved £60 and 3 points. So, no losers.

And finally: Cameras burn quite well!!! They are as vulnerable to the average arsonist as we are to them.

Right, that's my rant over........ I'll sit and await my speeding fine for doing 46mph on an open road in a big truck :}

Onan the Clumsy
15th Apr 2005, 20:02
But not one person has come up with any useful ideas to defeat the camera menace. Who needs to come up with an alternative? Cameras are just stupid, installed solely for the purposes of generating revenue, do not increase safety at all and should be removed immediately. They don't even decrease speed, and if they did, SPEED IS NOT THE MAIN CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS - innapropriate speed and poor driving skills are.

You don't need an alternative, just get rid of 'em all. :*

Oh, I just reread your quote and you weren't asking for an alternative :( Ah well

15th Apr 2005, 20:11
I tow a caravan ..shock, horror, and on single carriageway national speed limit roads, that is 50 MPH. Recently I have been held up by a [Farm] tractor/trailer on country roads [no National S/L but not safe at 35mph plus] and the "Local car drivers" who "Know the Road" belt past....and then brake and "skweeeze" in between me and said tractor..."Knockout".
To your point, I followed an arctic on the A49, sign on the back stated he was "limited to 59mph on single carriageways"....he was struggleing[sp] to make 40 :ok: I managed to overtake quite easily.....stuffing several reps in the process :ok:

Shropshire Lad
15th Apr 2005, 22:20
The problem with this is that there are so many bad drivers about (who can drive at any speed they want because they can judge it beter than any expert - they know their ABS will stop them in time yet aren't experts in braking technology , they know the road like the back of their hand (but only as it was the last time they drove down it) and are great at judging conditions - yet still accidents, strangely , happen) and realistically no one wants to tackle this.

We live in a society where no one wants to pay for services (ike extra traffic police) yet moan about the problems of speed cameras. You get what you pay for. Speed cameras are cheap. As a society we like cheap.

As mentioned earlier speed is a contributory factor in accidents but i agree with Onan - poor driving skills are the major problem. The number of times I've seen near misses due to the fact people seem to think that you can pull out on a dual carriageway as soon as you put your indicators on is amazing - with HGV's a particular joy in this respect. However if you are driving slower you have more time to react - therefore less likely to have an accident

15th Apr 2005, 23:20
Ok I'll have to spell it out for you. You heap big skilled driver. Him not so skilled driver. Him really crap driver. Rules made so crap driver can pootle along without worrying about fabulous heap big skilled driver and upsetting him when he can't scream past with scarf blowing in wind. If rule relaxed then really crap shit driver who only passed hiss test last week can borrow uncles beamer and scorch all over the shop. Whoops maybe that was a a bit too close to recent news.

When you are standing on your brakes because some poor bloody mep had the temerity to come out of a concealed entrance remember he might not be the silly prat in this situation. But of course you are too skilled to have that happen to you aren't you.

I am a bit pissed but I am alive to tell you that I have seen more of you "skilled drivers" spread all over the road than most of you fighter pilots have seen dead bodies in action. I wouldn't mind only you take so many with you. Every canteen cowboy who has taken out himself, his pax and any poor bloody bystander who got in the way has kept us informed to the point of boredom about how it isn't speed that kills but poor driving skills. Any police rotorheads who have spent time following lunatic drivers want to comment? None of those tossers on Police Camera Action look as though they don't know one end of a motor from another. 'Scuse double negative but it is friday night and I haven't got to drive tomorow.

Fuggin heros, won't let me fly under that fuggin bridge. And why not. It isn't as if there will be any other traffic is it? Let the fuggin Belgrano run the speed cameras I say.

15th Apr 2005, 23:28
I am a bit pissed

I trust that with such outstanding road safety advice, that you will have calculated how many units of alcohol are left in your system later today.

Although, you did state that you don't have to drive today.

You know, BEFORE you take out your motor vehicle on to the public highway :ok:

16th Apr 2005, 00:00
:hmm: No not really pissed but so bloomin' tired I can't reach the off switch.:zzz: Must stop these long days. Safe home everyone.

16th Apr 2005, 00:10
Wahaaayyy, I'm back from the pub and slightly pissed. And why not!!!



From what I can understand from your comments you are a chancer with a caravan in tow! Nice!!!

As to this: To your point, I followed an arctic on the A49, sign on the back stated he was "limited to 59mph on single carriageways".... He's having a larfff.

As I'm pissed I might as well say it now, before I sober up, "HGV drivers are the best trained drivers on the road", and before you all pipe in and say it, yes, there is the odd one out who lets the side down, but the HGV 1 test is as difficult as the CPL if not harder, and I know coz I've got both.

We do a job as HGV drivers (not the CPL bit here), and most of us will normally drive to around 50 ish on single carriegeways. That is as much a safety issue as a speed thing. You try driving at 40 with some numpty in a jumped up 1.1 Fiesta threatening to overtake in stupid situations, and believe me you tend to drive thinking for both him/her and yourself. Then, into this little equation you add the bloody cameras (which incidentally, take a snapshot and don't witness the **** in the car behind on a death mission) and the fact that, although the speed limits in this country are in mph, all HGV speedo's are calibrated in kmh, with mph on a subscale. Now this really happened to me recently: I was on a single carriageway road, with no load, so lots of power to weight, a **** in a silver racer close behind threatening the stupid option, and with warning signs that cameras are in the area. Now, in this situation, trying to maintain the situational awareness, then seeing the camera go by, not knowing exactly how close behind the **** is, with good brakes and no load, and glancing down to a speedo calibrated in the wrong units.

Sorry if that was a bit of a garbled explanation, but hopefully you get the picture that the camera take the picture and I get done for 46 mph. The bloody annoying thing is that if a copper had been there to see this, he'd have booked the **** behind for dangerous driving.

Can you understand why I'm ranting on a soapbox? It's not only the £60 (which I haven't got coz I spent £12000 on a CPL and FI(C)), but the additional cost of insurance.

So, lets have a straw poll. Who thinks the idea of a weeks legitimate protest by HGV drivers to stick to 40mph may be an effective way to say 40mph is too slow.


7006 fan
16th Apr 2005, 05:53
Was not aware of this 40mph lorry restriction. Seems plain daft to me. Does it apply on single lane A roads or just unclassified. Although a good idea in theory it is unlikely that joe soap public will appreciate the gesture (doubt they would understand) 40mph is a barmy speed, must mean truckers are constantly changing through the 16 odd gears to maintain speed on hills, humps, inclines etc.

I think you miss the point of Police Camera Action, unless you were being obtuse the 'nutters' shown on the prog are not the 2.4 populace but the very a**eholes we are all mad about. The toe-rags with no insurance and likely no licence and possibly under-age or TWOC'er. They do not give a s**t for speed cameras (or people for that matter), but what happens they are likely to get a fine and some points, if anything. One of the craziest things I heard was of a 15 year old who was caught and banned from driving for three years :\ (I can't work that one out either -assume it means from when he is LEGALLY allowed to drive).
For anyone who knows Surrey and the North Downs, there is a stretch of road twixt Dorking and Leatherhead, dual carriageway A24. This is a regular haunt at weekends for motorbikes to race each-other in speed trials, never see a copper but do see literally hundreds of bikers parked at the Burford Bridge Hotel. The local authority have introduced a 50mph limit on one of the bends and reduced to a single carriageway the southbound route. The daft thing is the 50mph is not policed it has not even got the decency of a GATSO just a flashing sign that lets you know if you are doing more than 50mph and a pretty illuminated camera! There is a classic out Weybridge area, one drives over a blind bridge which is quite steep, gravity takes over on the other side (where would we be without Mr Newton), immediatly afterwards is a speed camera warning. Think about it guys, one accellerates to get up the bridge, watching carefully because it is a blind summit, over the top and down the otherside into the welcoming arms of a speed camera. Now I agree with the camera being there becuase there is a school along the road (unlike politicians I do give both sides!), but there is no camera warning sign before the bridge and I do not remember seeing a School sign either!) This camera is there for safety, 100% in favour, but it is in such a position that even a 'law-abiding flat cap' who drives at 30mph in a 50 limit might have difficulty in keeping their speed below the threshold that sets these things off and so in that vein the camera is 100% revenue earning.
This camera also works at weekends 100% revenue earner ...schools are closed at weekends.

16th Apr 2005, 08:57
Onan - got you by page 3, but funny nonetheless!

In anticipation of page 7..... :ok:

16th Apr 2005, 09:59
No 7006 fan you miss the point. I say that the rules are there to make it easier to shut down the chancers who think that they are gods gift to driving and to give the less confident the excuse to drive carefully. Rules are aimed at the lowest common denominator. Can you imagine what our roads would be like if they were unregulated. You can't complain if you want rules for idiots if they apply to you as well. As for my thesis that the most dangerous drivers are the ones who are or think that they are skilled. Lets face it we all think that we are skilled, even the the tosser who annoys you. At least I have learned over the last thirty six years of driving that I get complaisant and the more skilled I get the more chances I take. So do you.

Funnily enough most GA accidents happen when the pilots get confident and a bit more skilled. I watched the development of hang gliding. No body died until they learned to soar. Maybe there is a lesson there.

Men die of embarrassment. They are too embarrassed to go and see the quack when their parts give 'em trouble and they are too embarrassed to slow down when conditions get adverse.

16 blades
16th Apr 2005, 15:04
Rules are aimed at the lowest common denominator

Considering that the lowest common denominator is the scrote with no licence, no tax, no insurance, and probably doesn't even have the car registered in his name at his address, what use are cameras? Cameras will only catch those who play by the rules, NOT those who truly ARE a danger on the roads.


16th Apr 2005, 16:56
I was driving a 2.5V6 with a [very] light 'van. and it was the only staight after a set of tfc lights. The 'van I now tow, I wouldn't overtake a tractor.....mind you, t'other day, a lot blasted past me to find said tractor and trailer in front...but I'd left a gap :ok:

16th Apr 2005, 17:56

I was driving a 2.5V6 with a [very] light 'van. and it was the only staight after a set of tfc lights. The 'van I now tow, I wouldn't overtake a tractor.....mind you, t'other day, a lot blasted past me to find said tractor and trailer in front...but I'd left a gap

Must be me.


........but I don't do drugs. :uhoh:

Orange In Cider
16th Apr 2005, 18:47
Can someone explain why I am allowed to do 70mph on a dual carriage way, where there may be bikes, learner drivers, sharp bends, multiple side-roads, crossing traffic, roundabouts, and multiple other hazards, yet on a relatively 'sanitised' bit of road, with many of these hazards removed, a hard shoulder to cope with breakdowns, and junctions designed to take high-speed access/exit, the limit is......still 70 !

I am not condoning a free-for-all but simply do not understand the logic. Motorways should be increased to 80mph limit as a minimum, probably 90mph in certain (dry?) conditions.

7006 fan
16th Apr 2005, 20:36
That is a valid point and one that does make the 'scratching of thatch' an activity, some way back someone (apologies but there are now 6 pages...too many to scoll back) suggested the incorporation of variables on the main routes a-la M25. The variable limit works -except when it is totally chocker then one can't even get a f*rt through the traffic, but if there was say 90 on the open bits, 60 at junctions maybe down to 50 at busy periods and 70 after 11pm or something (I think it should be madatory to pull from inside to middle lane at junctions to allow cars on, the junction tends to be the busiest bit for accidents leaving and getting on) and variables depending upon conditions, tailbacks etc, if one is caught above 90 then kiss your licence goodbye and take a re-test, at other speeds the points should be say 5. There should be no reason to speed at a junction 60 should be adequate, to do so indicates one is a complete a*se.
Not only should there be GATSO's but also cameras/sensors to monitor behaviour (these could be mounted in the grille and linked to the vehicles speedo -when you get too close to the vehicle in front based upon speed and conditions it bleeps a warning and records it to a database, this is downloaded when the vehicle is MOT'ed and sent to the Police, if you tailgate more than 3 times in a year you get 5 years hard labour and have to work as a dustman for....
Bit of Humour here just in case people think I am being serious with this idea -but you never know someone might market it

have a good Sunday whatever you are doing folks

16th Apr 2005, 20:51
Why do we build roads that are capable of very high speeds yet limit them to 70 mph?

If you look at any Motorway it is built to such a design as to lead people to want to drive faster than 70 mph - long straight stretches, gentle (but few) bends, few gradients.

Having built such a road to a standard far better than is really necessary is it any wonder people end up driving fast?

At the opposite end of the spectrum, during the Easter bank holiday I had to drive from London to Hstings. There were at least two villages where the posted speed was 40 mph but where it was patently absurd to even consider doing such a speed !

Both had the 40 mph signs a short distance from a tight corner, so 40 mph could never be achieved.

:hmm: :hmm: :confused: :confused: :confused:

17th Apr 2005, 00:50

I'm afraid that the stupid 40mph speed limit applies on all single carriageway roads, irrespective as to whether it is as narrow as a cycle path, or as wide and a runway!

I suspect that most car drivers are unaware of this limit, so when you are following a lorry at 40mph, the drivers is probably trying to avoid banking the points!!

As to the protest idea: Yes it would upset the general driving public, but for a good cause.

Happy Sunday all.

BTW: I'm sober tonight. Just got back from a days drive.... :ok:

Onan the Clumsy
17th Apr 2005, 04:10
Oh, it's all good and well to bleat on about what a PITA cameras are and how they aren't really a safety device, but you know what? If you made the speed limit of a road x miles an hour, there'd always be some idiot who just HAD TO GO at x + y miles an hour, either because he was late, or just knew better than the people who designed the roads.

If you had no speed limit at all, there'd be people who'd drive as fast as they car would take them.

So for these people (not us of course, never us :rolleyes: ) you need speed limits, and you need them set under the design limit of the road (because they'll still break them what ever the value), and if you have speed limits, you have to enforce them or else you might as well just not have them which leaves us back at the top of this post.

So let's face it; cameras stop drivers from becomming lunatics and your life may well have been saved as a direct result of that. Or to put it another way, if somebody t-boned you and killed you, your last dying words would probably be "Why was he allowed to go that fast?" and your last facial expression would be this one :*

Fletchers Left Boot
17th Apr 2005, 08:24

Spot on, goes back to what I have said before on previous threads about speed itself not being the problem, but *inappropriate* speed.

On too many roads locally, speed limits have been slashed (to the extent that we're all thinking "why??") and speed cameras fitted. A revenue raising measure for sure.

ON motorways, IMHO there is no reason at all these days why 90mph isnt a perfectly safe speed to drive in good weather and normal traffic conditions. I would like to see the law changed in that the motorway limits are raised to 90mph, but that police have the power to temporarily impose a lower limit in the event of bad weather etc. In Wilts you can still do 70mph on the M4 in thick fog, the cameras wont catch you even though you'd have to be criminally insane to do such a speed in those conditions.

Is it my intention that the next car I get will have some form of speed or cruise control, so that i can drive more safely with my eyes on the road. (and not on the speedo in case my speed should inadvertantly creep up)

17th Apr 2005, 09:10
Having driven the M4 many times it IS NOT SPEED that is the problem, but education of motorists. On an East/West stretch of motorway in the morning and evening the sun tends to get rather low at certain times of the year and is predominantly in your face or mirror regardless. So try turning some lights on when conditions are like this, why do you thing the Swedes and other Scandinavians drive with them?

What is next, banning cruise control on cars like the Belgian government? Personnaly i think an aptitude test of a decent standard should be introduced that takes in to account peoples SA, mental capacity and and ability to do more than breath, and in one foul swoop the number of vehicles on the road is reduced.....

17th Apr 2005, 09:29
So it comes down to who judges what is inappropriate. Screaming down the motorway we will always swear at the mep who pulls out to overtake a slow lorry making us stand on the brakes. But if you are the one who has looked very seriously into his mirror before pulling out could you be blamed for not being able to judge the speed of the car a klick behind? Have you ever tried to pull out on an Autobahn? It's a nightmare but you either risk it or stay behind the Norbert Dentrissangle.

Getting back to the cameras, as I have said before the one at the end of my road means that I can get out of my turning at last and there hasn't been a single accident since its appearance. This is a record; we used to have one or two serious accidents a year on a lovely straight bit of road that simply begs you to open up. I am prepared to bet that if you lived near those cameras you didn't like then you may think differently about them. I am not talking about motorways but I did ask a policeman about one on the M5 and he said that it was an accident black spot. Apparently local boy racers liked the stretch.

7006 fan
17th Apr 2005, 17:45
Went through the roadworks on the A180 this morning heading to Grimsby, 50mph and 30mph on the switch-back, GATSO at the beginning and that is all, travelled through at about 45mph, car behind two occupants, she in her 70's he about the same -guess what "ping ping" do not think they even noticed it as they carried on, without a flicker, but they started to slow down anyway, they disappeared from sight coz possibly they thought 30 was all the way through.
That is three points then despite driving slowly thereafter (could be they realised but I do not think so

Out Of Trim
17th Apr 2005, 21:02
(rant on)

I'm Sorry but things are coming to a head - Most people that drive fast are concentrating far more than those just poodling along at 70 mph and getting in everyones' way; and indeed just want to keep clear of all the centre lane hoggers - (Come on Ladies why do you do that!) and slow nervous types.. They probably have been driving for many years without any accidents through their own driving skills; in avoiding the unskilled and resent stupid Speed Cameras that do not catch those that drive badly.

So, Guess what will happen soon! - Yes many drivers will resort to removing their Number plates.. and Oh dear the Cameras will not catch anyone and indeed since there are no longer any Police cars around these days patrolling like they used to; there will be an end to the ever increasing amount of so called Safety Cameras contributing to treasury funds.

Perhaps when they start installing these cameras in front of schools - the public will take them seriously. They never seem to be sited in places that would add to road safety; How many times do you find yourself following these fools that drive at 40 mph everywhere they go - in National speed limit areas and then also into 30 mph villages! - quite often where a functioning driver may slow down to 20 mph to avoid hazarding the local community.. ie. if it's unsafe - Slow down by all means - Nobody wants to hurt anyone.

I find this happening all the time, and many people just seem to drive on Auto pilot - God knows how they get by without killing anyone.. or perhaps they do! and, then seem amazed and appalled that someone may want to pass them on a clear and safe spot once back on the open road.

(rant off)

Obs cop
17th Apr 2005, 22:22
And yet again me and my colleagues become public enemy number 1.

Firstly I am not going to promote the idea of speed cameras, but I would like to set the balance straight.

Both fixed site cameras and "Road Safety Vans - ie. mobile speed camera's" now come under loacl casualty reduction partnerships created by Blair and Co. These partnerships are made up of representatives of local government, councils, police, and certain other groups who contribute to local road safety. The cameas are placed based on a history of serious or fatal collisions at that site and the proceeds are split between funding the casualty reduction partnership and the government coffers. Not one penny goes back into police funds or budgets.

My colleagues and I HATE them with real vengence.

They have no discression, common sense or educational purpose.
The burden of administrating the tickets has been placed on police forces - drawing funds and assets away from fighting crime.
The ticket you receive will therefore have police on the top, continuing the myth that the police are soley responsible for putting the cameras there and then reaping the rewards.

I have been to more serious and fatal collisions than I can recall. Each and every one was avoidable, because each and every one could be attributed to driver error. Speed alone does not kill, but the fact of the matter is that the faster a car is travelling the more damage it will do. The drivers kill, and it is normally an innocent who is killed. Which is easier (read cheaper) for the government to do?

A) Educate millions of drivers who passed tests without ever driving on a motorway, where the most daming way to fail was by touching the kerb in a 3 point turn. Establish a more demanding test and re-test all those who are out there at the moment. At a stroke improving driving standards, reducing the overall number of collisions and therefore the unneccesary burden on the NHS, police, ambulance and courts, not to mention the public at large.


B) Install millions of speed cameras so that we can be fat dumb and happy, ignore the greater issue of poor driving standards on the basis that the accident will still happen, but due to the cameras, the speeds and impacts will be lower. The byproduct will of course be fewer serious and fatal accidents, with a self sustaining monster for which we can all blame the police whilst the government can point to it's statistical improvement in road safety.

Police forces are now so closely monitored against the government's targets, we either follow them or fall by the wayside. The vast vast majority of officers out there still want to fight crime and help the public. It is not as easy as it was with the many restrictions and gates now in place.

My only request is please don't target the easy option here. Vent opinion and anger against the cameras by all means, but the plain old British bobby still exists (albeit less visibly) and their heart is still for serving the public, they hate the cameras just as much as the public if for nothing else than the bad and unwarranted reputation it leaves the police with.

Obs cop

17th Apr 2005, 22:47
Good post obscops. Redresses the balance rather well IMHO.

17th Apr 2005, 23:08
Fine and dandy, but have YOU had dealings with the traffic police?

Well many of us have and it has left a bitter taste in the mouth, and definitely NO chance of my support.

18th Apr 2005, 08:25
Obscop, a good post. If only people of your intellect were in charge of road "safety" partnerships, we might actually get somewhere!

For all the "don't do the crime" brigade, I've tried asking this question before, but such people miraculously vanish from these threads as soon as it appears.

There is a road near where I live. It has fixed cameras at a couple of locations. I am driving along at 35mph, the speed that all "safety" partnerships bleat on about how it'll kill the kid if you hit him. A pedestrian walks into the road far too close to me and I do not have time to brake, slamming into him at 35mph and killing him.

The road had a 50 mph limit.

What good has the speed camera done?

Answers on a postcard.....

18th Apr 2005, 12:45
I must relate an incident in defence of the plod and bad driving on the motorways - I can't say too much as it on-going so to speak.

A couple of weeks ago, I was travelling up the M*. The traffic was busy, but not too bad. Out of nowhere, I was viciously undertaken by another vehicle, that caused me to brake violently in the fast lane [I was doing 80 at the time]. The offending vehicle, which I had noticed earlier on, sped off in the distance post-haste.

Since my wife and my little girl were scared witless, I phoned 999 to complain about the driving. The long and the short of it was, after two calls back from plod, the afore-mentioned vehicle was pulled over by two police cars 15 miles up the road, and they asked to pull over also to make a statement. When doing so, I honestly stated my speed - not a problem.

I, like many others, often feel that traffic police are never to be seen now, and mad driving goes unchecked. However, on one occasion when I needed them to be there, they responded.

18th Apr 2005, 13:11
Ops Cop said.
“The cameras are placed based on a history of serious or fatal collisions”

Really? Then why have two new cameras appeared this month (one in each direction) near my house (Westferry Road, E14, by the Ship pub). I’ve lived around here for eighteen years and I am aware of only one serious accidents on this particular stretch, and that was ten years ago. (In that case a lorry failed to stop at a junction and hit a bus: excess speed was not the issue, driver inattention was the problem).
By the way, I have no objection to these particular cameras: they are in a busy residential area, schools nearby, close to a zebra crossing. I am simply arguing with you on the point about the supposed requirement for a history of accidents before a camera appears.

The real problem in inner London is dangerous driving by untaxed / unregistered cars - which cameras do nothing to stop.

18th Apr 2005, 13:33
Rules Of The Safety Camera Funding Scheme

Q1 How many accidents are needed at proposed sites for enforcement in order for cameras to be placed ?

The rules for the safety camera netting off scheme have been developed to have the most positive road safety benefits and demand that partnerships should use the guideline of four accidents resulting in people being killed or seriously injured over the previous three years at sites they propose to enforce using cameras. This does not preclude cameras being placed at sites that do not meet the guidelines if they contribute to the overall strategy aimed at reducing road accident casualties.

18th Apr 2005, 14:58
Is that four speed-related accidents, or will any accidents do ?

What would be the purpose of placing a speed camera at a location where the accidents had other causes ?

Now once a camera has been placed, wouldn't it be interesting if they published the statistics of all subsequent accidents at that location and the speeds of the vehicles involved.

Let's face it, everything's being recorded, so why do we never see a graph of (accidents per thousand vehicles) against speed ? The only reason not to publish those figures would be if they didn't back up the "speed kills" mantra . . . :suspect:

Onan the Clumsy
18th Apr 2005, 16:14
Of course you'll never see it, and for precisely the reason you mention.

Speed cameras though are nothing to do with safety OR accidents. Britain is now the most photographed country in the world - and I mean by the government, not tourists.

Speed cameras were introduced under the obviously false pretext of road safety to make an otherwise unwilling population get used to having cameras all about them. It won't be long now before those pictures are used to find out where you are and where you have been. It's really not a difficult technology to read the registration plate, and store it in a database.

Typically, this is done with toll tags (RFID) like we have in the US, but the UK doesn't have enough toll roads to instigate this form of self reporting. Instead, they use cameras and use the revenue stream as a money earning disguise. Who can fight this? Nobody - if you try, you'll simply be accused of trying to dodge a fine.

As for where they are placed, it's nothing to do with accident black spots. It's all in relation to jusctions. It's just like putting breakpoints in a program you're trying to debug. If it triggers Camera A, then you know they went on Route B etc.

7006 fan
18th Apr 2005, 21:38
Ops Cop
Totally 100% agree with you. Dipsticks cause accidents, if no-one was a dipstick there would be no accidents. Logic or what!!!
2.4 spread over the road is not nice, neither is the little lass bashed by the speed merchant.
All I would say is if you catch the b*stards at it, give 'em a good diggin'these type think that because it is a motoring offence they can 'literally' get away with murder! (remember Harry Callahghan all you punks)
Make My Day! -dn't you just wanna burn their asses?

Obs cop
18th Apr 2005, 22:53

Yes I have had dealings with traffic police and to be fair, the penalties I faced were far greater than 3 points and £60.

One night, I pulled up adjacent to a car in a layby and on seeing that the occupants were a male driver and a young but nervous looking female passenger, I spoke with the driver asking him where he was from. He was well away from his own area and so being suspicious as I am paid to be I informed him I would run his reg no. through the computer. As I rolled back to get his number he drove off.

Now definately sensing all was not right, I put my blues on to try and stop him, but he continued to drive at 60mph down national speed limit country roads.

Not wanting to risk a pursuit, I turned the lights off and dropped back so that I could follow at a distance. Due to the country roads and the time of night, I could see where his lights were about 400m ahead of me, but he then just sped up. I elected not to chase and informed my control the vehicle had made off and I was not going to give chase.

Some moments later I could see what can only be described as a fiesta of light on the road and it was evident that he had crashed. When I got to the scene it became apparent that he had hit an oncoming vehicle having lost control of the car in a bad bent and at some speed.

Why did he roar off, drive like an idiot and put people's lives at risk (fortunately no-one was killed), he was uninsured, disqualified and clearly had little regard for others.

To add insult to injury, he was also over the alcohol limit and the car had not rear brakes.

I was then investigated at length to ascertain my involvement and if I was responsible for the events. This was done by traffic officers from my own force. My driving standards and decision making skills are picked apart at length in much the same way as an air crash investigation. The cars have black boxes and the tapes from the control room are pulled. Witnesses spoken to and in my case I was cleared of any blame.

The cause of the crash was the driver. He had a drink before driving, he elected to drive uninsured and disqualified. He elected to drive away from a patrol car. He chose to then drive at an inappropriate speed for the road and the conditions. He failed to maintain his car. He had no regard for the safety of others. He crashed as a result. In the same way as an aircrash is a chain of linked events, so was this crash. By making any one of the decisions differently, the crash would probably not have happened. Was speed the cause, no. Poor driving, yes because driving is both a physical coordination task, and a constant decision making process.

Like them or loath them traffic cops are far more useful to society than a camera. The kind of person who cannot see the consequences of inappropriate speed will not change their ways as a result of 3 points and £60 as clearly they are not bright enough to see further than the end of their nose. IMHO. However, traffic cops aim to educate, not just penalise. Until you have stood in the house of a person and told them their relative/beloved is dead as the result of a crash, you may never understand their world. Have an opinion on traffic cops by all means, but please remember the less enjoyable elements of human nature and suffering they deal with.

By the way, I am not into traffic, but I have seen more than a few of them who have needed therapy to deal with post traumatic stress disorder. Do I like them? They are just like you and I, so some I do some I don't. Do I respect them? Some yes, some no. Do I respect the job they do? Yes.


Obs cop

18th Apr 2005, 23:35

Great post. Nuff said.

18th Apr 2005, 23:44
Sorry fella.

I have seen more than a few of them who have needed therapy to deal with post traumatic stress disorder. If you cannot stand the heat, etc...I have had to attend to a number of fatal accidents on the railway were colleagues have been killed, and pick up the pieces because no-one else will. Sudden departure of Police from scene........

Unlike road accidents we tend to find the pieces all over, on rolling stock, in the adjoining fields, etc. You get the picture. We then have to go to the funeral and comfort the grieving relatives.

I won't go into the obvious fatal accidents where the person was caught unawares, or the suicides where we have had to crawl underneath the train to recover the remains, where we have had to walk the track at night searching for what is left.....

Some traffic cop giving me that spiel doesn't work so away with the crocodile tears please. I have the teashirt and can probaly give him 10 times that sort of moralising.

My dealings have been where a verbal would have been fine but of course theywere more interested in the money and the points.

Obs cop
19th Apr 2005, 00:28

The object of my last post was not a points scoring exercise, nor was it a we've got a worse/ more gruesome job than x,y or z.

The purpose of it was to provoke a bit more thought from some than the usual "I've been wronged. I was only x miles per hour over the limit but all police are [email protected]$".

There is no excuse for impolite or rude behaviour from officers. I may be blunt when speaking with the public, but never rude. I appreciate that not all of my colleagues are the same, but that is simply human nature and I don't care where you go in society there will always be individuals who will get people's backs up.

What I find fascinating is that you will find people who tell you their doctor, lawyer, estate agent, bus driver etc. is great. Likewise, you will also find the balancing side who say their are rubbish. This balance seems lost when talking about the police, and often it is simply the actions of the few amongst us that make our PR so hard. What I detest is the hammering we get from speed cameras when in reality they have very little to do with us.

Lastly, there are no crocodile tears to be shed. All police officers are aware that if they don't like it they can change jobs. Most don't because they have the chance to "do their bit" to improve society. The people whom I admire most in this country are the paramedics. I really don't think I could hack their job, but that is another matter. I can hack my job, understand the risks and deal with the negatives best I can. But I am only human, with all the failings that brings with it. Granted there are people out there with more grim jobs than mine, that are harder or less well paid, but fundamentally the police are there to help the public. I don't know if during that shift, or even in 2 minutes time I'll be disarming a knife wielding nutter, telling parent their son is dead or reams of paperwork. All I do know is that a lot of our good work goes unrecognised because the press prefer the scoop headlines about how poor the police are. How good we are doesn't sell papers, and unfortunately the public often take what they read at face value. People are not perfect and so neither will any organisation staffed by people be perfect.

All I ask is treat each officer as an individual because that is what they are. They don't want sympathy, most are hard working people, just like you or I who want to help people.


Obs cop

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2005, 07:34
Another one yesterday, on my route home from work. Limitdrops from 60 to 40, straight section of road, footpaths set back, no residential property, good visibility, excellent weather at the time. Would be safe, to drive at over 50, although few ever do as they would have to slow soon to 40. In the 5 years I have known the road, used daily by our students and now by me, I have never known of an accident there. Mobile speed camera. Why do these people waste their time? Have they nothing better to do?

19th Apr 2005, 08:12
Obs cop, great post. I'd be very interested at the reaction of the types who would defend speed cameras to hell and back regardless of any other possible factors! Suspect their brains would overload somewhat!!

Astrodome. Using dead bodies as a "willy waving" type "mine's worse than yours" bragging session? Disgusting. :yuk:

19th Apr 2005, 08:29

I agree with you on both points of your last post especially that regarding Astrodome.



Send Clowns
19th Apr 2005, 08:45
To answer the question some have asked. Speed not a factor in the accidents, yet camera approved ... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/19/ncam19.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/19/ixhome.html)

19th Apr 2005, 08:49
Good link SC.

I think the AA Road Safety chap hits the nail on the head with:
"They are much cheaper than putting an extra lane on a dual carriageway or introducing other measures like improved central barriers to make a road safer."

19th Apr 2005, 09:33
Cheerio, I think he just meant he turned the blue lights off.

Onan the Clumsy
19th Apr 2005, 11:56
You know, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

Speed limits are clearly marked and exist for a reason. If there were no limits, these pages would be full of rants about all the other crazy drivers racing around as fast as their cars would go. Your quiet street would be full of boy racers and you'd be afraid to leave the house.

In any event, if these cameras were as unpopular as people seem to say, why don't you all just lobby about it? Start a movement, you might even get things changed.

Like I said


19th Apr 2005, 12:27
You know, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If there were no limits, these pages would be full of rants about all the other crazy drivers racing around as fast as their cars would go. Your quiet street would be full of boy racers and you'd be afraid to leave the house.
You don't live in England anymore do you?

Boy racers do scream about, quite happily with speed cameras doing sweet FA about it.
Start a movement, you might even get things changed.
Such groups already exist. The "safety" partnerships p*ss themselves laughing at them before continuing to not do the job they are paid to do.

19th Apr 2005, 12:40
send clowns: To answer the question some have asked. Speed not a factor in the accidents, yet camera approved ...

Hey come on it's Essex! The whole place is an accident> :p

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2005, 13:23
If I did my job as badly as the "Safety Partnerships", people would die. Oh, my mistake, people are dying. Road deaths up last year for the first time ever!

Just seen in the local paper Police admitting that traffic officer numbers have halved in the last 15 years, alongside the 50% increase in the region's traffic. Looks like 1/3 the manpower per unit of traffic. Supposedly not due to speed cameras, but the "evidence" offered that it wasn't was that none had gone to the "Safety" Camera people, they had moved to other specialist units. Well they have been pushed off the job as they were perceived not to be needed, and cameras cheaper. Whether it is the same people doing the camera job as had been enforcing all the spectrum of traffic legislation is irrelevant! Using evidence like that no wonder some forces have difficulty securing convictions.

I wonder why more people are dying?

Not intending to have a go at Police themselves, but Police boards really need to get more traffic police and fewer cameras.

19th Apr 2005, 13:24
If I did my job as badly as the "Safety Partnerships", people would die.
People wouldn't die in my case, but if I did my job as the Safety Camera bunch do, I'd definitely have been sacked long ago!

Curious Pax
19th Apr 2005, 14:26
SC, can you clarify your statement "Road deaths up last year for the first time ever!"? Not disagreeing with the thrust of your argument, but surely that can't be true? First increase in the last xx years perhaps?

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2005, 14:34
Yes, sorry, you are quite right. Careless posting when busy. It is the first time for several decades, I believe since the 60s if not before. Startling really, when there had been a long-established trend of 5% per annum drop. Fortunately I don't do my job as carelessly as I post :p

19th Apr 2005, 15:21
I've been busted for speeding 4 :mad: times this months, 3 in the region of 4 miles to fast, the other (highway) 25 miles too fast :O

By now every km2 is covered by these :mad: gutsometers or 6 man :mad: police squads are controlling speed by :mad: laser guns and the use of :mad: seat belts.

In the meantime :mad: criminals under probation are free to continue their :mad: crimes and :mad: heavy criminals and/or :mad: terrorists* are on the free because of :mad: mistakes made by the :mad: DA...

Is THIS justice???

* one suspected terrorist could not be found for over a week after he was released recently...

Not for a :mad: minute, eal401...

19th Apr 2005, 15:25
I take it you aren't happy with the situation Kaos? ;)

19th Apr 2005, 15:35

So you are complaining because a multiple offender has been caught and punished?

:eek: :eek: :eek:



p.s. I wish there was a tongue-in-cheek smiley

19th Apr 2005, 15:59
Couple of comments..

1. Don't trust those speed displays at the side of the road too much - I have a late model ex police car complete with certified calibrated speedo and the accuracy of these signs compared with my speedo varies from spot on to (so far) 9 mph higher than I was travelling, that worried me so checked it against the onboard GPS which confirmed the accuracy of my speedo.

2. In 15+ years I too have been to many serious and fatal accidents and yes speed was a factor - they were moving (see posts above!) - far far more were due to careless/drunk/stupid/drugged/etc drivers than speeders.

3. I have had many professional dealings over the years with traffic cops and I have to say I have far more time for them than the rest of the police force, something which was recently reinforced heavily.... For on thing they tend to be older and more experienced officers who actually look and listen to the situation.


Send Clowns
19th Apr 2005, 19:18
Onan's wrong anyway. The energy is proportional to the square of the speed but the impact, i.e. impulse or transfer of momentum is directly proportional to the speed. Energy is certainly not the only consideration, arguably not the most important.

20th Apr 2005, 10:09
BBC: A temporary speed trap at roadworks in East Sussex has led to motorists being fined £750,000 in two months.

Speed cameras were placed on both carriageways of the A27 at Falmer while a pedestrian subway was installed. The speed limit on the road near Brighton was reduced from 70mph to 40mph and about 12,500 drivers who failed to slow down were fined £60.

The figures are revealed in the 2003-2004 review of Sussex Speed Camera Partnership, which runs the cameras.

20th Apr 2005, 10:21
Simple physics state that impact is related to the square of velocity. So reducing speed reduces the impact of a collision, thereby reducing road carnage.

But don't forget that the chances of having an accident also depend on the amount of time spent on the road, so,

If I have a crash on a motorway, whilst driving at 70mph, the chances are that I will end up dead. However, if I drive at 140mph and have an accident, I will not end up twice as dead, but I would only have been on the motorway for half of the time. So increasing speed reduces the chances of me being killed in an accident.

Isn't science a wonderful thing to use in an arguement!!

20th Apr 2005, 12:47
So you are complaining because a multiple offender has been caught and punished?
If he was a rapist/mugger/murderer/drunk driver/wife beater/child abuser/conned the elderly/had no insurance/MOT/driving a dangerous vehicle/drug dealer etc. etc. I'd undertsand your point.

He wasn't.

Sadly for some people, being more successful catching a speeder than any of the above is perfectly acceptable and to be celebrated.

20th Apr 2005, 13:42

Sadly for some people, being more successful catching a speeder than any of the above is perfectly acceptable and to be celebrated

Where did I read that catching a rapist is worth two traffic offences to Thames Valley police? What's easier?

I have only been here a few months and I'm already flabbergasted.


20th Apr 2005, 14:07
Welcome to British Justice BOFH!

P.S. that comment is a dig at the system, your average bobby on the beat is probably as disgusted at the points systems as the rest of us.

Onan the Clumsy
20th Apr 2005, 14:45
It's absolutely outrageous that this hidden tax is raised in the name of safety, especially when it has the exact opposite effect. Cameras cause people to look inside instead of outside where the real danger is.

Even worse than that the story I heard that the photographs are actually compared against a list and any matching ones are destroyed. That list of course contains the registration numbers of all the senior police officers and politicians. If you don't believe me, then try asking for a copy of the film and see how far you get. They'll hide behind privacy laws, but let's face it, any time something is secret like this, there's something to hide. :*

What's even more disturbing is that I also heard a story that the cameras also photograph cars UNDER the posted limit. After all, it's just a still, not a movie, so there's no way to know how fast the vehicle was REALLY going. The technology to read a registration plate has been around for a while and is fairly simple. If you do follow my advice in the previous paragraph, see how soon it is before you suddenly and mysteriously start tripping cameras all over the place. :* :*

Big Brother pure and simple. Absoultely nothing to do with safety. :* :* :*

20th Apr 2005, 18:08
Found this (http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050420/ts_csm/acamera) on the Drudge Report. Not all legislators are speed camera Nazis.


Dynamic Apathy
21st Apr 2005, 10:58
Ok, we have all had our little bleat............. So how about some action then.

Every right thinking person should carry out a risk assessment where a GUTSO is sited. This will be based of course on conditions pertaining to that particular stretch of road and safety considerations, without any reference being made to financial revenue (That'd make the Authorities collective eyes wince).

Having made a decision which is against the siting of a camera at that location, the device should be bagged and tied with a bin liner, which of course all right thinking motorists should carry in their vehicles.

Between the right thinking drivers, and the hooligans who torch the damned things the scourge may eventually be reduced to acceptable safety related levels.

SO, COME ON EVERYBODY, THE NEW SLOGAN "BAG THE [email protected]" :ok: :ok: :ok:

21st Apr 2005, 13:51
Well Mr.Rules, this multiple offender has not had an accident since 1981 (knock on wood). All I do is anticipating and avoiding :mad: accidents with other :mad: car morons driving exact the legal speed or far below while not having a :mad: single clue what's happening on the street.

Just been to City Hall and witnessed a 85 year oldtimer just got his drivers license extended for another 5 year. The poor man could hardly even walk and his wife had the lead him through the door otherwise he would not have found it...

21st Apr 2005, 14:21
Captain GATSO (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1037031,00.html) :E



Onan the Clumsy
27th Apr 2005, 20:13
Bump :E

7006 fan
27th Apr 2005, 20:51
Just right for the Bank Holiday rush. Wonderful!!!

27th Apr 2005, 22:09
how bout this one? reckon Clouseau is inside?


Dontcha love this one?


or this one?


27th Apr 2005, 23:02
Right then, you lot - who was it? The one wot stole the dumper truck near York and drove 30 miles, knocking down GATSO cameras? (BBC TV News tonight).

Good on yer ;)

Strange that no-one noticed....... :rolleyes: