Speed Cameras
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed Cameras
With the enormous increase in the numbers/types of speed cameras and the consequent profiteering by the respective authorities, motorists need a platform to fight back from.
I am sure that aircrew are just as vulnerable as anyone else to these often unreasonable and downright sneaky traps. I myself had 2 in the last year and a half, but nothing for more than 12 years!
Well the platform exists and the fightback has begun.
There is a website or two as well as a book that will explain how to protect yourself and successfully get your conviction dismissed!
I am in no way connected to the book, but I did buy it and read it from cover to cover. It's written by an ex copper!!! You will find it advertised at the back of Top Gear magazine, it's called The Driver's Survival Handbook at £19.99
There are also the following websites with a wealth of information.
http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/
http://pepipoo.com/
The main theme is not to condone speeding, but if you or your granny have broken the limit just by a few mph, you WILL be sent a NIP, Notice of Intended Prosecution. From this point you HAVE a choice!
There is a LOOPHOLE in the law, which will acquit you, if you bother to read just a bit.
So go on, spend a few minutes get some facts into your head and fight the predatory, big brother, dictatorial state, this country is slowly becoming. If nothing else, this will slow the system down to standstill and show that people indeed have power!
I am sure that aircrew are just as vulnerable as anyone else to these often unreasonable and downright sneaky traps. I myself had 2 in the last year and a half, but nothing for more than 12 years!
Well the platform exists and the fightback has begun.
There is a website or two as well as a book that will explain how to protect yourself and successfully get your conviction dismissed!
I am in no way connected to the book, but I did buy it and read it from cover to cover. It's written by an ex copper!!! You will find it advertised at the back of Top Gear magazine, it's called The Driver's Survival Handbook at £19.99
There are also the following websites with a wealth of information.
http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/
http://pepipoo.com/
The main theme is not to condone speeding, but if you or your granny have broken the limit just by a few mph, you WILL be sent a NIP, Notice of Intended Prosecution. From this point you HAVE a choice!
There is a LOOPHOLE in the law, which will acquit you, if you bother to read just a bit.
So go on, spend a few minutes get some facts into your head and fight the predatory, big brother, dictatorial state, this country is slowly becoming. If nothing else, this will slow the system down to standstill and show that people indeed have power!
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about Snoopers but acquired a Road Angel GPS camera detector recently, from Halfords for £400. Knows where the fixed camera locations are and hasn't missed one yet. It also comes with a windscreen mounted laser detector. The GPS accurate to a surprisingly small number of feet. Their website is http://www.blackspot.com .
The only snag I've found is if you are driving on a road in close parallel to one with a camera, you'll get a nuisance warning. No sweat but the first time nearly gave me a heart attack at three figures on the M25.
The only snag I've found is if you are driving on a road in close parallel to one with a camera, you'll get a nuisance warning. No sweat but the first time nearly gave me a heart attack at three figures on the M25.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point Reynolds.
Equally though, consider whether all speed cameras are actually sighted in accident blackspots rather than hidden behind signposts, trees, etc. and whether the speed limits are appropriate. Driving at 30mph through a housing estate (whilst perfectly legal - except where a 20mph limit is applied) is potentially far more dangerous than doing 100mph on a quiet motorway. Just for clarity, the three figures on the M25 occurred at 2am.
You have clearly been taken in by the government con that "Speed Kills". That's quite a sweeping statement which tries to justify a money making exercise. 7% of accidents in the UK are attributable to excessive speed. The phrase should read "Inappropriate Speed Kills". Unfortunately, the government would no longer be able to justify extorting money and removing the driving licences of hard-working honest people.
Equally though, consider whether all speed cameras are actually sighted in accident blackspots rather than hidden behind signposts, trees, etc. and whether the speed limits are appropriate. Driving at 30mph through a housing estate (whilst perfectly legal - except where a 20mph limit is applied) is potentially far more dangerous than doing 100mph on a quiet motorway. Just for clarity, the three figures on the M25 occurred at 2am.
You have clearly been taken in by the government con that "Speed Kills". That's quite a sweeping statement which tries to justify a money making exercise. 7% of accidents in the UK are attributable to excessive speed. The phrase should read "Inappropriate Speed Kills". Unfortunately, the government would no longer be able to justify extorting money and removing the driving licences of hard-working honest people.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic has had a thorough airing on PPRuNe over the last month or two.
Here is Fenton Bresler's opinion, from The Telegraph:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There can hardly be a motorist in the land who has not read about the twin cases of Blackburn Rovers footballer Dwight Yorke and Michael Mawdesley from Chorley, Lancashire, whose speeding convictions were overturned in the High Court by Mr Justice Owen because of a technicality about unsigned forms sent back to the police.
"A legal loophole that could be exploited by hundreds of drivers," exulted one newspaper. "Thousands of motorists have a case for driving convictions to be toppled," said another. "Thousands of drivers may be able to have speeding convictions overturned," proclaimed a third.
But The Daily Telegraph more discreetly stated: "Speeding laws may have to be redrawn." That sober assessment is the most likely to be correct, and I say that based upon many years of experience as a barrister defending motorists in court.
It is standard practice when the police believe that a significant driving offence has been committed – not only speeding – and they have not personally spoken to the driver at the time, to send, within 14 days, three written notices to the registered keeper of the vehicle, as revealed by its registration number.
These are: (1) "Notice of Intended Prosecution'' under Section 1 of the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act, warning that a prosecution may follow; (2) "Notice Requiring Information About The Driver'' under Section 172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, asking the registered keeper to fill in, sign and return the notice answering questions as to who was driving the vehicle at the specified time and place when the offence was alleged to have been committed, and, in many cases; (3) Notice making "Conditional Offer'' of a Fixed Penalty under the Road Traffic Offenders Act so that the driver can avoid going to court and facing greater punishment.
Yorke and Mawdesley's cases concern Section 172 notices. In Yorke's case, the box for the driver licence number had been left blank but his name and address had been inserted together with his date of birth. In Mawdesley's case, the driver's number had also been inserted plus his name, address and date of birth.
But in both cases the spaces for signature and date had been left blank. Without those signatures, was there any evidence that either man had been the driver when Mawdesley's vehicle had been caught on a speed camera travelling at 102mph on the M56, and Yorke's Porsche 911 Turbo had been recorded by an approved laser device travelling at 61mph in a 40mph zone? Warrington magistrates had said ``Yes'' in Mawdesley's case and convicted him. Manchester magistrates had ruled likewise with Yorke and the local Crown Court had upheld his conviction.
The much greater use of speed cameras over the last year or so has greatly increased police resource to Section 172 notices. Otherwise, how could they prove who was driving when the camera shutter clicked? In overturning both convictions (although remitting Mawdesley's case for a retrial) Mr Justice Owen said there appeared to be "widespread knowledge", which was spreading "like a virus" up and down the country, that an unsigned Section 172 form was inadmissible as evidence. And he acknowledged that his decision was of particular importance "given the prevalence of the use of laser and photographic technology to check the speed of motor vehicles".
In fact, according to Andrew Mimmack of the Justices' Clerks' Society, there have been several drivers who have recently avoided conviction because of blank forms. "It's a steady trickle," he says, "and we long for the uncertainty to be cleared up." This is big business for the police — £73 million was generated from speed cameras last year, with £66 million returned to camera partnership schemes which include the police as partners.
However, Mr Justice Owen's somewhat turgid judgment has not greatly served to clarify the law for either motorist or police officer and the CPS is considering an appeal to the House of Lords. Indeed, unnoticed by the media, the judge actually said in terms: "I accept that if the Appellants (ie counsel for Yorke and Mawdesley) are right in their submission that an unsigned Section 172 form is inadmissible, then there may be a lacuna in the law. But that is not an issue that it is necessary for me to resolve for the purposes of these appeals."
Oh really! So what is all the fuss about? Mr Justice Owen overturned Yorke and Mawdesley's convictions because, off his own bat, he concocted the argument (not originally advanced by counsel) that an unsigned Section 172 form could amount to a "confession" under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which, he ruled, did not require a caution. Since the Crown Prosecution Service had not argued their case before the magistrates on that basis, he sent Mawdesley's case back to them for a rehearing, but because Yorke's agent had given evidence that he had completed the footballer's unsigned form (without permission), he thought it "not appropriate" in Yorke's case to order a rehearing. Having read and re-read Mr Justice Owen's judgment, I still do not understand why, as a matter of law, he came to that conclusion.
So where are we? What now is the law? Some experts have elaborated the most fanciful and ingenious arguments to protect future motorists. With respect, I think they are all nonsense and no self-respecting Bench – or their clerk – would allow them to triumph. Edmund King of RAC Legal Services hits the nail on the head when he says that Yorke was fortunate that the authorities had not picked up on his unsigned form earlier. "If the police had done their job properly," he says, "they would have gone back to him to sign, and he would not have got off."
In fact, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have already improved their processes, with the police returning unsigned forms to the registered keeper for signing. As a spokeswoman for RAC Legal Services says: "If there is a repeated failure to sign the notice, it is highly probable that an alternative charge will be made: eg failure to supply details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence, an offence which carries the same penalty points and fine as the original speeding charge."
The law is in a mess, and Mr Justice Owen has not helped much. Ian Murray, an AA legal adviser, says: "He has tried to plug the use of this defence and although the floodgates aren't open, there's still uncertainty and the law will probably have to be rewritten."
Meanwhile, shoddy police work could still lead to some motorists escaping.
Defence lawyer Fin O'Fathaigh of the White Dalton Partnership, which has clients facing similar speeding cases, says: "For now, motorists who receive what looks like a notice of intended prosecution through the post will be giving it to their wives or relatives to open and fill in without permission."
But will an intelligent, practical Bench believe such a tall story? I very much have my doubts
Here is Fenton Bresler's opinion, from The Telegraph:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There can hardly be a motorist in the land who has not read about the twin cases of Blackburn Rovers footballer Dwight Yorke and Michael Mawdesley from Chorley, Lancashire, whose speeding convictions were overturned in the High Court by Mr Justice Owen because of a technicality about unsigned forms sent back to the police.
"A legal loophole that could be exploited by hundreds of drivers," exulted one newspaper. "Thousands of motorists have a case for driving convictions to be toppled," said another. "Thousands of drivers may be able to have speeding convictions overturned," proclaimed a third.
But The Daily Telegraph more discreetly stated: "Speeding laws may have to be redrawn." That sober assessment is the most likely to be correct, and I say that based upon many years of experience as a barrister defending motorists in court.
It is standard practice when the police believe that a significant driving offence has been committed – not only speeding – and they have not personally spoken to the driver at the time, to send, within 14 days, three written notices to the registered keeper of the vehicle, as revealed by its registration number.
These are: (1) "Notice of Intended Prosecution'' under Section 1 of the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act, warning that a prosecution may follow; (2) "Notice Requiring Information About The Driver'' under Section 172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, asking the registered keeper to fill in, sign and return the notice answering questions as to who was driving the vehicle at the specified time and place when the offence was alleged to have been committed, and, in many cases; (3) Notice making "Conditional Offer'' of a Fixed Penalty under the Road Traffic Offenders Act so that the driver can avoid going to court and facing greater punishment.
Yorke and Mawdesley's cases concern Section 172 notices. In Yorke's case, the box for the driver licence number had been left blank but his name and address had been inserted together with his date of birth. In Mawdesley's case, the driver's number had also been inserted plus his name, address and date of birth.
But in both cases the spaces for signature and date had been left blank. Without those signatures, was there any evidence that either man had been the driver when Mawdesley's vehicle had been caught on a speed camera travelling at 102mph on the M56, and Yorke's Porsche 911 Turbo had been recorded by an approved laser device travelling at 61mph in a 40mph zone? Warrington magistrates had said ``Yes'' in Mawdesley's case and convicted him. Manchester magistrates had ruled likewise with Yorke and the local Crown Court had upheld his conviction.
The much greater use of speed cameras over the last year or so has greatly increased police resource to Section 172 notices. Otherwise, how could they prove who was driving when the camera shutter clicked? In overturning both convictions (although remitting Mawdesley's case for a retrial) Mr Justice Owen said there appeared to be "widespread knowledge", which was spreading "like a virus" up and down the country, that an unsigned Section 172 form was inadmissible as evidence. And he acknowledged that his decision was of particular importance "given the prevalence of the use of laser and photographic technology to check the speed of motor vehicles".
In fact, according to Andrew Mimmack of the Justices' Clerks' Society, there have been several drivers who have recently avoided conviction because of blank forms. "It's a steady trickle," he says, "and we long for the uncertainty to be cleared up." This is big business for the police — £73 million was generated from speed cameras last year, with £66 million returned to camera partnership schemes which include the police as partners.
However, Mr Justice Owen's somewhat turgid judgment has not greatly served to clarify the law for either motorist or police officer and the CPS is considering an appeal to the House of Lords. Indeed, unnoticed by the media, the judge actually said in terms: "I accept that if the Appellants (ie counsel for Yorke and Mawdesley) are right in their submission that an unsigned Section 172 form is inadmissible, then there may be a lacuna in the law. But that is not an issue that it is necessary for me to resolve for the purposes of these appeals."
Oh really! So what is all the fuss about? Mr Justice Owen overturned Yorke and Mawdesley's convictions because, off his own bat, he concocted the argument (not originally advanced by counsel) that an unsigned Section 172 form could amount to a "confession" under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which, he ruled, did not require a caution. Since the Crown Prosecution Service had not argued their case before the magistrates on that basis, he sent Mawdesley's case back to them for a rehearing, but because Yorke's agent had given evidence that he had completed the footballer's unsigned form (without permission), he thought it "not appropriate" in Yorke's case to order a rehearing. Having read and re-read Mr Justice Owen's judgment, I still do not understand why, as a matter of law, he came to that conclusion.
So where are we? What now is the law? Some experts have elaborated the most fanciful and ingenious arguments to protect future motorists. With respect, I think they are all nonsense and no self-respecting Bench – or their clerk – would allow them to triumph. Edmund King of RAC Legal Services hits the nail on the head when he says that Yorke was fortunate that the authorities had not picked up on his unsigned form earlier. "If the police had done their job properly," he says, "they would have gone back to him to sign, and he would not have got off."
In fact, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have already improved their processes, with the police returning unsigned forms to the registered keeper for signing. As a spokeswoman for RAC Legal Services says: "If there is a repeated failure to sign the notice, it is highly probable that an alternative charge will be made: eg failure to supply details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence, an offence which carries the same penalty points and fine as the original speeding charge."
The law is in a mess, and Mr Justice Owen has not helped much. Ian Murray, an AA legal adviser, says: "He has tried to plug the use of this defence and although the floodgates aren't open, there's still uncertainty and the law will probably have to be rewritten."
Meanwhile, shoddy police work could still lead to some motorists escaping.
Defence lawyer Fin O'Fathaigh of the White Dalton Partnership, which has clients facing similar speeding cases, says: "For now, motorists who receive what looks like a notice of intended prosecution through the post will be giving it to their wives or relatives to open and fill in without permission."
But will an intelligent, practical Bench believe such a tall story? I very much have my doubts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reynoldsno1
We know your type.
Always right and the one that would hand it a tenner to the "honest" authorities if found on the pavement.
You always drive exactly or just below the speed limit and readily agree that the speed you are TOLD to drive at is APPROPRIATE.
It follows therefore that speed cameras are justified and that if you drive just one or two miles above the limit, you're a deserving candidate for a large fine and for losing your licence in half an hour, possibly (if offended by passing 3 or so cameras).
Have you not thought that it's a scam?
Have you not thought that they just want your money?
What kills is BAD DRIVING and certainly not speed. I have been "speeding" for 25 years now, but it's only according to some other idiot's idea.
As far as I know I have been driving to my own limits safely and successfully.
Have YOU got there yet???
We know your type.
Always right and the one that would hand it a tenner to the "honest" authorities if found on the pavement.
You always drive exactly or just below the speed limit and readily agree that the speed you are TOLD to drive at is APPROPRIATE.
It follows therefore that speed cameras are justified and that if you drive just one or two miles above the limit, you're a deserving candidate for a large fine and for losing your licence in half an hour, possibly (if offended by passing 3 or so cameras).
Have you not thought that it's a scam?
Have you not thought that they just want your money?
What kills is BAD DRIVING and certainly not speed. I have been "speeding" for 25 years now, but it's only according to some other idiot's idea.
As far as I know I have been driving to my own limits safely and successfully.
Have YOU got there yet???
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human factor, you don't say where you got your 7% figure from but, in a HofC committee report, published June 2002, the DTLR stated that
I post the site reference. http://www.publications.parliament.u.../557/55702.htm
It does seem to contain a number of conflicting statements, particularly the section entitled "the Relationship Between Speed and Casualties", sub-section 14, has left me totally
!
speed is a major contributory factor in around one third of all road traffic accidents.
It does seem to contain a number of conflicting statements, particularly the section entitled "the Relationship Between Speed and Casualties", sub-section 14, has left me totally
!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Greater London, UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening all,
If anyone is after a Snooper I'd highly recommend them, but get the most expensive model you can afford. The S1's are S*!t apparently, with a few suppliers refusing to continue the line because so many people were returning them.
I picked up an S5 for £150 on ebay with Halfords selling them at £349. Mine works absolutely like a gem, with only a few false alerts. On the M25 you get about a miles warning for the gantries.
On a seperate note, you'd be AMAZED at the number of speed camera's not turned on. On the A420 between Oxford and Swindon there are something like 12 of the beggars on a 20 mile stretch of road. More than often, I can cruise in the contentment that actually none of them are active.
Smashing.
Cheerio.
If anyone is after a Snooper I'd highly recommend them, but get the most expensive model you can afford. The S1's are S*!t apparently, with a few suppliers refusing to continue the line because so many people were returning them.
I picked up an S5 for £150 on ebay with Halfords selling them at £349. Mine works absolutely like a gem, with only a few false alerts. On the M25 you get about a miles warning for the gantries.
On a seperate note, you'd be AMAZED at the number of speed camera's not turned on. On the A420 between Oxford and Swindon there are something like 12 of the beggars on a 20 mile stretch of road. More than often, I can cruise in the contentment that actually none of them are active.
Smashing.
Cheerio.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that we all think that in this area it's our right to break the law but in others its not. I just don't get it.
I would agree with anyone who says that the posted speed limits are inconsistent and some are just plain daft - but very few of us seem to be able to tell the difference.
When I'm collecting my daughter from school at school letting out time it's not 2am in the morning on the M25 but most people are still way above the 30mph limit. It's not just a few it's almost everyone. When my daughter is wobbling all over the pavement on her bicycle next to a 30mph road, people will still drive within a few feet of her at 45mph. Again, it's not just a few - it's almost everyone.
When people drive on the road that disects a playing field near my house, they'll significantly break the 30mph limit regardless of how many children are running toward the road following an escaped football. Again, not just a few - almost everyone.
Almost all of us appear to think that we're better at working out what the speed limit should be and will say how it's OK to go lots of miles per hour on the motorway at 2am (I happen to agree with that). Almost all of us appear also to be completely incapable of working out when the speed limit is actually appropriate.
Personally, I would like to see consistent and sensible speed limits everywhere and absolutely rigid enforcement of them. If us drivers were more sensible about it then none of that would be necessary but I don't think that we are. And when my daughter's life is at stake the cost of some arrogant driver getting it wrong is just too high to take lots of chances with.
What's this got to do with flying?
I would agree with anyone who says that the posted speed limits are inconsistent and some are just plain daft - but very few of us seem to be able to tell the difference.
When I'm collecting my daughter from school at school letting out time it's not 2am in the morning on the M25 but most people are still way above the 30mph limit. It's not just a few it's almost everyone. When my daughter is wobbling all over the pavement on her bicycle next to a 30mph road, people will still drive within a few feet of her at 45mph. Again, it's not just a few - it's almost everyone.
When people drive on the road that disects a playing field near my house, they'll significantly break the 30mph limit regardless of how many children are running toward the road following an escaped football. Again, not just a few - almost everyone.
Almost all of us appear to think that we're better at working out what the speed limit should be and will say how it's OK to go lots of miles per hour on the motorway at 2am (I happen to agree with that). Almost all of us appear also to be completely incapable of working out when the speed limit is actually appropriate.
Personally, I would like to see consistent and sensible speed limits everywhere and absolutely rigid enforcement of them. If us drivers were more sensible about it then none of that would be necessary but I don't think that we are. And when my daughter's life is at stake the cost of some arrogant driver getting it wrong is just too high to take lots of chances with.
What's this got to do with flying?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Greater London, UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha, yeah what HAS this got to do with flying?Unless of course big brother has begun to erect speed camera heli's that hide in a cloud by the side of an airway and flash the unlocky sod going too fast.
Despite sitting on the fence until I get groin rot, I have to agree with pondlife. Yeah I'm sure that a lot of drivers are capable of matching their speed to their environment, but if those who CAN'T begin to think they CAN because other drivers do, and someone gets killed....then its not really worth it is it?
I used to think I could break the limit as much as I wanted so long as I didn't get caught, and I still do sometimes, but with age I've grown much more aware of the consequences. I've also seen a few nasty speed related crashes (Last year I had to peel a guys head off the windscreen of his escort after he tried to overtake someone infront of him turning right and was going way too fast to stop).
BAW22
Suave yet Shallow
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: half way between the gutter and the stars.
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone interested...there's some amusing pics of GATSOs which have their best days behind them:
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
Fire...paint....air rifles...hitting them with lorries & JCBs...all tools to stop the GATSO getting ya'
page 4 of that link even has fake GATSOs....NIMBYs who put up fake boxes either in their gardens or on telegraph poles to mess with drivers...when even the police don't want/need them there
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
Fire...paint....air rifles...hitting them with lorries & JCBs...all tools to stop the GATSO getting ya'
page 4 of that link even has fake GATSOs....NIMBYs who put up fake boxes either in their gardens or on telegraph poles to mess with drivers...when even the police don't want/need them there
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newswatcher,
My figure of 7% (7.3% to be precise) came from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL323). The government's figures included such causes as 'aggressive driving'. I don't doubt for a second that this is dangerous but one can drive aggressively at perfectly legal speeds.
Check out http://www.abd.org.uk/one_third.htm for a more considered viewpoint. Also http://www.trl.co.uk, which is the source of the report.
Besides, as I'm obviously a criminal who has no thought for anyone else's welfare, how is it that I can take my car back to it's country of manufacture and run it on public roads legally at 150mph all day?
I don't for one second condone dangerous or irresponsible driving. Nor however, do I condone politicians manipulating the facts to their own ends.
I wish people would keep open minds rather than be dragged along by government hype. This is also the reason we went to war in Iraq, but I feel thread creep coming on .......
My figure of 7% (7.3% to be precise) came from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL323). The government's figures included such causes as 'aggressive driving'. I don't doubt for a second that this is dangerous but one can drive aggressively at perfectly legal speeds.
Check out http://www.abd.org.uk/one_third.htm for a more considered viewpoint. Also http://www.trl.co.uk, which is the source of the report.
Besides, as I'm obviously a criminal who has no thought for anyone else's welfare, how is it that I can take my car back to it's country of manufacture and run it on public roads legally at 150mph all day?
I don't for one second condone dangerous or irresponsible driving. Nor however, do I condone politicians manipulating the facts to their own ends.
I wish people would keep open minds rather than be dragged along by government hype. This is also the reason we went to war in Iraq, but I feel thread creep coming on .......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Nor however, do I condone politicians manipulating the facts to their own ends."
Quite to the point Human Factor.
This whole phenomenon of mushrooming speed cameras is blatantly obviously there to make money for the authorities.
In the process you may lose your licence for a while and consequently your job.
This country has had it and I would vote any party in next, who says they will reduce the number of cameras, put them ONLY in realistic accident spot locations and increase speed limits on motorways.
This is the only way forward.
Quite to the point Human Factor.
This whole phenomenon of mushrooming speed cameras is blatantly obviously there to make money for the authorities.
In the process you may lose your licence for a while and consequently your job.
This country has had it and I would vote any party in next, who says they will reduce the number of cameras, put them ONLY in realistic accident spot locations and increase speed limits on motorways.
This is the only way forward.
TightYorksherMan
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Peak District
Age: 41
Posts: 1,570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedbird - I presume thats why this thread is under the Non-Air Transport Issues.
Does anybody know of placing speed cameras on the M1?
Jinkster
Does anybody know of placing speed cameras on the M1?
Jinkster
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard a rumour, admittedly just that, that SPECS cameras (the average speed ones) had been installed somewhere in the Leics/ Notts area on the M1. Keep an eye out.
Anyone know of a website which publishes camera locations?
Anyone know of a website which publishes camera locations?
