Dam speed camera van (robbing *******s)

[Adam W]

It's not, that is the maximum permitted speed. Doesn't mean you have to drive at that speed.

Theory Test Advice :: Making progress

 

[Plonker 3]

That proves what? Yes driving at 10 mph on motorway could be very dangerous, but lorries are usually limited to 56 mph. Does that make them a danger on them?

 

[Adam W]

You're expected to drive up to the speed limit if it's safe to do so. The use of speed cameras seems to suggest it's fine to drive around as slow as you like as long as you don't exceed the speed limit under any circumstances.

 

[HandySparks]

All good and well if you're stopped by a human policeman, but had you been snapped by a 'safety' camera you could have lost your licence - "rules are rules" after all.

I suspect that 'safety' cameras hadn't been invented then.

 

[Plonker 3]

You're expected to drive up to the speed limit if it's safe to do so. The use of speed cameras seems to suggest it's fine to drive around as slow as you like as long as you don't exceed the speed limit under any circumstances.

I have never said you can drive extremely slow, you highlighted a story in which you claimed a speed camera led to the death of a motorcyclist. I am pointing out he was not only speeding which led to him braking hard, but also going too fast to know if the road ahead of him was safe to drive.

So before you go claiming I have said something get your facts right and read everything not just what you want to read.

 

[Adam W]

I have never said you can drive extremely slow, you highlighted a story in which you claimed a speed camera led to the death of a motorcyclist. I am pointing out he was not only speeding which led to him braking hard, but also going too fast to know if the road ahead of him was safe to drive.

So before you go claiming I have said something get your facts right and read everything not just what you want to read.

And how do you know any of that? The road was clear and the experienced motorcyclist would have been able to see far enough into the distance to judge whether it was safe to drive at that speed.

 

[Plonker 3]

Because it says it in the story you linked too. I have just told you to read everything,You really do just seem to be picking what you want to read.

 

[Adam W]

I read the information given and made up my own mind. There's no need for that stretch of road to have been reduced to 50mph, and even less reason to hide a mobile speed camera behind a sign other than for the purpose of harvesting revenue.

 

[Plonker 3]

Why isn't there? I don't know the road at all, but what I do know is, there will be signs telling you the speed limit for it. I travel all over the country working and have yet to see a road without one. Maybe you should be a solicitor in this field if you have such a vast knowledge of it and seem to thnk you know better than the people who make these decisions.

 

[Adam W]

It's a straight, open dual carriageway - there's no need for the speed limit to reduce to 50mph but there is every need for it to keep moving, being the main way in and out of town.
There are signs telling you what the speed limit is, and there are large information signs which the camera operators hide behind. It doesn't take a solicitor to see you'd be better off looking where you're going than looking behind the signs trying to spot the camera operator.

It's quite clear that the people who make these decisions get it wrong just the same as anyone else, hence why the speed limits change, which is invariably to a lower speed on the blind assumption that speed is always to blame for collisions.
Politicians, sports referees, electricians - they're often accused of not knowing what they're doing - I don't see why some civil servant who makes up the speed limits should be any different. Councils are always under pressure to keep council tax down so must make up the difference elsewhere. Lowering a speed limit and putting in a speed camera is an easy way to do this, especially if it can be passed off as a safety measure and people will believe it.

 

[jaypp]

I'm sure I heard recently that a local council somewhere stopped some sort of speed detection because the revenue generated went to main government.

 

[Rockingit]

I had similar speed cam van "hiding " behind a Luton van in a layby, Dual carriage way 40 MPH for 40 years that I knew of, until a few months back they changed it to 30 MPH after owning up to being the driver with no mitigating circumstances allowed. The tiny new signs were not displayed prominently the gun got me for doing 40 MPH not pulled over, some weeks later received a £95 fine plus 3 points, or choose only other option of a national speed awareness curse of £95 which I do this Sat. 3 months after the contrived event. I have it all recorded on my cab CCTV they do not allow me to show how unjust it is, just another revenue tax on my van ?

Ermm...check your paperwork with a fine tooth comb here : the police have a mandatory 14 days in which to send you the NIP from date of offence, any longer than that and they are acting illegally and there is case law that backs that up.

 

[Rockingit]

an NIP( NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION) may be served up to 6 months following the alleged offence,this is to allow adequate time to collect any evidence required for a prosecution.This is primarily for cases involving acts such as causing death by dangerous driving and other such serious crimes but applies in all cases,incidentally once the summons or FPN(fixed penalty notice) has been sent to the address of the registered keeper it is deemed in law to have been served,as it is down to the RO(registered owner) to notify a change of address.If the fine is not paid within 28 days then a warrant is issued for the arrest of the RO.

Not so sure you're up to date (unless I'm not and it was VERY recently changed). It's 14 days for the Notice, then six months after that is the window in which they can actually prosecute. The NIP has to be sent to the Registered Keeper within 14 days, the only anomaly being that there can be exceptions made if there is trouble with identifying the RK at DVLA.

 

[NickD]

Yes the trick is to avoid the sudden stop altogether, such as being able to identify a hazard and adjust the speed accordingly; being distracted by people lurking in the bushes doesn't help that.
Jumping out of an aeroplane is perfectly safe provided the parachute opens, but if it doesn't the person will be killed. Does this mean jumping out of aeroplanes for recreational reasons be banned just in case?

Hazards are not always identifiable in advance. That is not the nature of the real world. This is part and parcel of why we have speed limits.

No, it means the conditions under which you are allowed to jump out of aeroplanes have to be tightly controlled by rules. You are confusing risk management with risk avoidance.

 

[NickD]

"Pulled out" from where exactly?

From a side road if present? From an adjacent lane if motorway or dual/multi-lane carriageway? Who cares?

Whatever arguments are used for not driving above 50mph on that stretch of road could be applied to further up the road where the speed limit is 70mph

You think they've dropped the speed limit for the hell of it then? You have detailed knowledge of the accident statistics for the stretch of road in question?

(Somewhere, on a forum about road safety, there is a road safety officer banging on about how his RFC has a 32A MCB and is wired in 2.5mm, so there can be no arguments for him not wiring his cooker circuit, which is also protected by a 32A MCB, in 2.5mm. It's just obvious.)

who is to say that driving at 70mph is safe one minute but dangerous the next while under the same conditions?

People with expertise in the matter under consideration and with all the relevant information.

 

[NickD]

All good and well if you're stopped by a human policeman, but had you been snapped by a 'safety' camera you could have lost your licence - "rules are rules" after all.

Except you can appeal.

 

[NickD]

You're expected to drive up to the speed limit if it's safe to do so. The use of speed cameras seems to suggest it's fine to drive around as slow as you like as long as you don't exceed the speed limit under any circumstances.

Up to. Not close to. Up to. If your choice is to drive at 50mph in a 70 limit, that is entirely defensible and there are a myriad of reasons why you might.

Driving unreasonably (in the strict legal sense) slowly, as in 25mph on a motorway, can readily constitute dangerous driving and people have been prosecuted for it.

None of this works as an apology for driving over the speed limit.

 

[NickD]

And how do you know any of that? The road was clear and the experienced motorcyclist would have been able to see far enough into the distance to judge whether it was safe to drive at that speed.

I am sick to death of hearing about all the amazing motorcyclists out there with all this experience and skills well in advance of car driving cagers and great road awareness and etc. etc. The fact is that a large part of the reason motorcycle fatalities are so awful is because so many bikers ride like divs. I say this as a motorcyclist.

 

[NickD]

It doesn't take a solicitor to see you'd be better off looking where you're going than looking behind the signs trying to spot the camera operator.

Or to tell you you would have zero need to be distracting yourself trying to spot camera operators if you were keeping to the speed limit.

It's quite clear that the people who make these decisions get it wrong just the same as anyone else

"I know of no means so effective for the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws as their stringent execution" - Ulysses S. Grant.

Politicians, sports referees, electricians - they're often accused of not knowing what they're doing - I don't see why some civil servant who makes up the speed limits should be any different.

Criticising the ref is one thing - feel free. What you are suggesting is ignoring the ref and keeping on playing because you don't agree you should have been sent off.

By the way, nurses and doctors are civil servants.

Councils are always under pressure to keep council tax down so must make up the difference elsewhere. Lowering a speed limit and putting in a speed camera is an easy way to do this

This is nonsense. My local authority, and surrounding ones, had to close down their speed camera programmes for over a year because of budget cuts. Repeat, close down. Because of budget cuts. They could no longer afford to run the programme any more. The speed camera programme was COSTING THEM MONEY TO ENFORCE. Drivers were of course aware the cameras had been turned off / had no film in and started ignoring them. The resultant increase in average speeds, and (guess what) in serious injuries and deaths, were so scary that the authority had to find the money to reinstate the programme - think they went cap in hand to central government and the police authority, I forget, but that's not the point.

There may be a point here about the money being raised from speed camera fines going to central government revenues and them doing nicely out of it, but the assertion that councils put in speed cameras as a revenue earner is straightforwardly wrong.

 

[Adam W]

From a side road if present? From an adjacent lane if motorway or dual/multi-lane carriageway? Who cares?

What do you mean "who cares"? The point is if a motorist can clearly see that there are no hazards on the road they should be free to drive at national speed limits, not some arbitrary speed limit made up by some civil servant sitting in an office trying to tick a box to justify the existence of their position. You obviously don't know the road in question and are just spoiling for an argument.

 

[NickD]

What do you mean "who cares"? The point is if a motorist can clearly see that there are no hazards on the road they should be free to drive at national speed limits, not some arbitrary speed limit made up by some civil servant sitting in an office trying to tick a box to justify the existence of their position. You obviously don't know the road in question and are just spoiling for an argument.

The idea that the motorist has all the information in his view through the windscreen to decide the safe speed limit for a road is ludicrous. I know I don't know the road in question; the difference is, you don't know that you don't really know it either, you just think you do cos you've driven it a bit.
I'm (politely) arguing with you because I think you're wrong and opinions like this do real harm. Where are you in such a hurry to get to that a few minutes saved are critical so you break the law, anyway? Are you a paramedic?

 

[Badged01]

If we just made is a speed "free-for-all" with no restrictions then other motorists/bikers/pedestrians would be more observant and weary of speeding traffic? Take more care and less acccients? Less income for the police/council/govt/whoever, but who cares about that!

Gets my vote