hi has any one ever been caught by one of these!? traffic light cameras!!? because i went past one eariler and i noticed a red light flash twice (on the camera part) and i wondered if its gotten me!! as i was turning right at the lights, they just tured yellow so i might have bn unlucky :(! has this happed to any one before? could you please tell me what the penatly is!!?
Thanks :(

The penalty ought to be a period in a correctional facility - for correcting spelling, grammar and punctuation! :hihi:

Originally posted by 1985simon
hi has any one ever been caught by one of these!? traffic light cameras!!? because i went past one eariler and i noticed a red light flash twice (on the camera part) and i wondered if its gotten me!! as i was turning right at the lights, they just tured yellow so i might have bn unlucky :(! has this happed to any one before? could you please tell me what the penatly is!!?
Thanks :(

If the light flashed, its got you.

And if thats the case then I'm sorry, but I don't believe you went on amber (not yellow) - it must have been red.

Traffic light offences carry a maximum fne of £1,000, a ban at the discretion of the magistrate and 3 points on your licence.

UNLUCKY !!!!!:heyhey:

I hope there's plenty of overtime to be done at your place :D and look on the bright side you did get to work on time :P

Originally posted by redrobbo
The penalty ought to be a period in a correctional facility - for correcting spelling, grammar and punctuation! :hihi:

Snob, the guy was asking for some advice.

No wonder some people do not like posting.

Hi there,

I think that if you were flashed you must have gone through a red light and not the amber one. However, saying this, this does not automatically mean that you will receive a fine or points on your licence. I have been flashed by the traffic camera on Halifax Road and never received anything, I believe that the camera had no film in it. You may be lucky

Not quite sure of the penalties but will check it out for you

Good luck

Just checked, looks like you will get a NIP (Notice of Impending prosecution) through the post within 14 days and then a minimum penalty of 3points and £60

Good chance no film was in the camera, fingers crossed eh!

happened to my friend and he was speeding too! as people do when they see the lights changing, dip their foot!

so he got double done!

I was going up Barnsley road on Monday night and a speeding car caused the light to flash, so that one is genuine.

Well mate, the traffic cameras do not flash on amber, but moreso approx 2 seconds after the light has gone red.

Speed cameras will flash regardless of whether they have film in them or not.

Traffic light cameras are calibrated depending on the speed limit of the road they are situated on. For example, imagine a scenario where the car is travelling at 60mph on a 60mph limit and the lights change to amber as they are approaching the junction. It may well be unsafe for the driver to stop, so the driver continues through the lights and will likely go through on red. In this situation the camera will not flash.

They are designed to catch dangerous driving as the post above alludes to. Going through two seconds after they have been on red can have disastrous consequences and drivers need to be punished accordingly.

Try not to worry, modern technology is not always accurate. For example, my boyfriend was doing 28mph in a 30 zone and the camera flashed. He never got a ticket. Cameras are not always right.

Originally posted by Micky
....... imagine a scenario where the car is travelling at 60mph on a 60mph limit and the lights change to amber as they are approaching the junction.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that you will find any traffic lights on a road with a speed limit higher than 40 mph.

They are all designed so that you should be able to stop well within the distance when they turn amber if travelling at the speed limit.

I can assure all motorists in North Sheffield that the auto camera on traffic lights at the junction of Halifax Road and Doe Royd Lane, near to Lidl, Wadsley Bridge WMC and Lyminster Road, is very much active and you will definately receive a notice of intended prosecution from South Yorkshire Police if you fail to comply with these particular traffic lights under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

It may take 3 weeks to come through.

These cameras will also record your speed if you jump the red light. The above lights are on a 40 mph dual crriageway.

It is now officially recommended that all traffic lights show amber for 3 seconds before going to red and for 2 seconds before going to green.

The message is - drive like you did when you passed your test. Allow extra time for your journey. Concern yourself not with how others are driving but how you are driving.

Better that than being responsible for disfiguring a child for the rest of their happy life - by then it's too late to stop being a smart arse.

Originally posted by Unregistered
I can assure all motorists in North Sheffield that the auto camera on traffic lights at the junction of Halifax Road and Doe Royd Lane, near to Lidl, Wadsley Bridge WMC and Lyminster Road, is very much active and you will definately receive a notice of intended prosecution from South Yorkshire Police if you fail to comply with these particular traffic lights under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

It may take 3 weeks to come through.

These cameras will also record your speed if you jump the red light. The above lights are on a 40 mph dual crriageway.

It is now officially recommended that all traffic lights show amber for 3 seconds before going to red and for 2 seconds before going to green.

The message is - drive like you did when you passed your test. Allow extra time for your journey. Concern yourself not with how others are driving but how you are driving.

Better that than being responsible for disfiguring a child for the rest of their happy life - by then it's too late to stop being a smart arse.

if it takes 3 weeks, laugh, a nip must be served within 14 days to be valid, if not, they can't prosecute.

There are plenty of lights on roads with 60 limits, the lights are calibrated to give you time to stop from the speed limit when it goes to yellow, so you should never be going through on red.

Originally posted by Cyclone
If it takes 3 weeks, laugh, a nip must be served within 14 days to be valid, if not, they can't prosecute.




Not true - the Police are allowed time for postage. Hence the 3 weeks to allow for snail mail.

Also, if you were driving a company car, hire car or someone elses car, they are allowed more time to track you down.

alot of roads have lights in 60 zones, i'm pretty sure i've seen them on 70 dual carriageways too.

Originally posted by Cyclone


There are plenty of lights on roads with 60 limits, the lights are calibrated to give you time to stop from the speed limit when it goes to yellow, so you should never be going through on red.

I stand corrected. Thank you.:)

Originally posted by ole1
alot of roads have lights in 60 zones, i'm pretty sure i've seen them on 70 dual carriageways too.

A good example of a 70mph limit road with traffic lights is the A580 to Liverpool aka the East Lancs road. Loads of traffic lights on that one.

Originally posted by Unregistered
Not true - the Police are allowed time for postage. Hence the 3 weeks to allow for snail mail.


Sorry, Unregistered,

..... but (as Cyclone pointed out) the requirement is that the NIP be served on the registered keeper within 14 days. They are required to post it in good time for it to be reasonably expected to be delivered within 14 days.
A day or two late is reasonable. Three weeks is not.

put cameras everywhere or anywhere you want, cant get me that way,my ride aint registed because of the cameras !!!.

Originally posted by Esa666
put cameras everywhere or anywhere you want, cant get me that way,my ride aint registed because of the cameras !!!.

in which case I hope you get stopped as it's also not insured.

Brear in mind that is CAN take up to SIX MONTHS from being caught be a GATSO wotsit speeding machine.....depends on how "popular" the machine is!!!!

I think the 'flash' would have been a white light not red. They don't go off unless the traffic lights are red when you go past them. Like the other reply, fingers crossed for no film in it.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
Brear in mind that is CAN take up to SIX MONTHS from being caught be a GATSO wotsit speeding machine.....depends on how "popular" the machine is!!!!

if you don't receive the notice within 14 days then go to a solicitor as it cannot be upheld in court.

Originally posted by Cyclone
if you don't receive the notice within 14 days then go to a solicitor as it cannot be upheld in court.

Sure, I just thought it was 28 days.

Originally posted by Unregistered
The message is - drive like you did when you passed your test. Allow extra time for your journey. Concern yourself not with how others are driving but how you are driving.

Better that than being responsible for disfiguring a child for the rest of their happy life - by then it's too late to stop being a smart arse. Usualy when you drive and you're a careful driver your attention is turned towards other drivers who aren't as respectful as you, I like to call that self preservation.
That behaviour is especially useful at night !

Originally posted by cgksheff
Sorry, Unregistered,

..... but (as Cyclone pointed out) the requirement is that the NIP be served on the registered keeper within 14 days. They are required to post it in good time for it to be reasonably expected to be delivered within 14 days.
A day or two late is reasonable. Three weeks is not.

99% sure that's 14 WORKING DAYS.

Originally posted by Esa666
put cameras everywhere or anywhere you want, cant get me that way,my ride aint registed because of the cameras !!!.

That's very clever of you.:shakes: Bet that makes up for your lack of manhood!:roll:

Originally posted by cgksheff
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that you will find any traffic lights on a road with a speed limit higher than 40 mph.

They are all designed so that you should be able to stop well within the distance when they turn amber if travelling at the speed limit.

Corrected - you are wrong! There are loads of roads with traffic lights on them where the speed limit is greater than 40mph.

However, an amber light means "stop if safe to do so", so if in your opinion it wasn't safe to do so then you are OK to go through.

Also, as with being flashed by a speed camera, the police must issue you with a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) within 6 months of the alleged offence. Your first point of call should be to ask to be sent a copy of the photo to help you to help them identify the driver (this will also enable you to see if the lights were Amber or Red when you passed through them).

Upon receipt of the photo, you do have a legal obligation as the registered keeper of the vehicle to notify the police of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence; however, you also have the right not to incriminate yourself under the Human Court of Rights and therefore should respond with:

"I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C [Mawdesley -v- the Chief Constable of Cheshire [2004] 1 All E.R. 58]. Therefore, it is my understanding that, and this statement and the information in it is submitted subject to the condition that, it may not and will not 'be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution'."

Whilst this may not prevent you from ending up with points and a fine, it is a worthwhile standpoint.

If you were driving dangerously, you deserve everything coming to you; but if this is SYPOL plc hoping to generate more cash to put up more indescriminate cameras then I hope that this information is useful to you.

* And this information is given in good faith, don't come looking for me if you end up in Broadmoor! lol

Originally posted by claycraft
99% sure that's 14 WORKING DAYS.

Settled then. A fortnight.

I'm led to believe the police work 7days/week.



* now where are those smiles!*

Originally posted by FORE
Settled then. A fortnight.

I'm led to believe the police work 7days/week.



* now where are those smiles!*

I thought they only worked one day a week, then manned the "Casualty reduction vehicles" the other six as overtime!
:roll:

speed cameras are a joke. the police should spend their time catching real criminals instead of fannying about wasting time prosecuting people 2mph over the speed limit.

Originally posted by zillion_flys
speed cameras are a joke. the police should spend their time catching real criminals instead of fannying about wasting time prosecuting people 2mph over the speed limit.

Not that this one aint been done before, but you proberbly just opened Pandoras Box :suspect:

I got flashed by the speed camera on Halifax road in the 40 mph zone. I was doing 35.

Perhaps it was flashing the lunatic undertaking me, but I was not particularly happy about it.

Unfortunately my vote is that speed cameras generally do work at reducing motorists speeds - at least for the thirty feet or whatever that the cameras can take a reliable shot.

What about those new motorway cameras being fitted on the M1? Digital, and apparently they measure the average speed a car is travelling between two points. Anyone think they will work?

Dragon

They definitely work - they're the same SPECS cameras as they have on the Stocksbridge bypass.

But for Gods sake, lets not go down this route again - at least not on this thread. If you must talk about speed cameras (as opposed to red light cameras which is where this topic started) then at least post it on this thread

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1527

so I can avoid reading the same people coming out with the same old standpoint time after time

Originally posted by Dragon


What about those new motorway cameras being fitted on the M1? Digital, and apparently they measure the average speed a car is travelling between two points. Anyone think they will work?

Dragon


Yes - specially when people have 9 points - and driving while banned can mean prison.


PS
MOT certificates are now being computerised - along with vehicle insurance. Those cameras will eventually pick out untaxed, uninsured and un MOT'ed vehicles (over 3 years old)

The Police will no longer require you to produce your documents in 7 days - they will know what documents you hold for that vehicle.

Originally posted by zillion_flys
speed cameras are a joke. the police should spend their time catching real criminals instead of fannying about wasting time prosecuting people 2mph over the speed limit.

Oh Dear.... another case of opening gob before engaging brain !!!!...... do people still really think that the police actually waste well trained officers to sit and look at camera pictures all day????

don't know how true this is but i was told that only 25 camera's have film in them at any one time.

Originally posted by kirky
don't know how true this is but i was told that only 25 camera's have film in them at any one time.
A genuine question - do these cameras really use "film"? I would have hoped in this day and age that everything would be digital and instantly transmitted off to some big brother hq :)

Originally posted by Dragon


What about those new motorway cameras being fitted on the M1? Digital, and apparently they measure the average speed a car is travelling between two points. Anyone think they will work?

Dragon

what new motorway cameras? To the best of my knowledge the stretch of the M4 that was in the news recently is the only motorway with fixed speed cameras.

Originally posted by rich951
A genuine question - do these cameras really use "film"? I would have hoped in this day and age that everything would be digital and instantly transmitted off to some big brother hq :)

most cameras are now digital and somedont even flash as they have infra red or something along those line, i was only recently told this by a driving instructor so unsure if its really accurate

http://www.pepipoo.com/

have a poke around on there for FACTS, none of this "i think" or "i heard" nonsense.

Most Constabularies send them out within 14 days of the alleged offence - even if you were spoken to at the time by a police officer (see verbal NIP). The law has been amended in 1994 to allow the police to use ordinary post and their records are sufficient to prove that the NIP was issued on time. They also get an allowance of a couple of days for the post to deliver them.

The Police have six months to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) because they are exempt from the 14 day rule and if you were stopped, and spoken to by a police officer, they also have six months to prosecute you because the officer will have issued you with a verbal NIP at the time.

To recap there, they have 14 days to notify you, and 6 months after that to prosecute.

I think you are wrong about traffic lights not being on roads with a maximum speed limit of 40mph. The dual carriageway leading to Whiston crossroads in Rotherham has a maximum speed of 50mph and there are definitely traffic lights there, and traffic light cameras too.

Originally posted by Billy24
I think you are wrong .............

Why don't people READ anymore?

You may THINK, but I KNOW that I was wrong, was corrected and acknowledged this several posts back!!!!

well keep ya hair on will you, i didn't see it sorry.

Originally posted by Dragon


What about those new motorway cameras being fitted on the M1? Digital, and apparently they measure the average speed a car is travelling between two points. Anyone think they will work?

Dragon

Not heard that one. On which stretch of the M1 are they situated?

Originally posted by savbaby
most cameras are now digital and somedont even flash as they have infra red or something along those line, i was only recently told this by a driving instructor so unsure if its really accurate

Why should you be unsure, Savbaby? (The instructor wasn't me by the way)

GATSO's use film - the TRUVELO and SPECS ones are digital.

Originally posted by Unregistered
The message is - drive like you did when you passed your test. Allow extra time for your journey. Concern yourself not with how others are driving but how you are driving.


Dear God, I hope not. I was rather nervous on my test and came uncomfortably close to colliding with a rather wobbly cyclist. I think I've probably come on a bit since then. But the point is right. Whether you obey speed limits like a slave or not, and whether you never amber gamble or not, it's a truly excellent idea to take a massive chill pill and leave a little room for observation and manouvre. If you alone can keep your head etc, then you'll be a generally safe and happy motorist

my mate just got his 12th point through a red light. not good.

THE Government is blocking the installation of nearly 500 new speed cameras amid signs that ministers are beginning to doubt the effectiveness of the devices. (from the Times)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1694858,00.html

So with a bit of luck common sense is beginning to win.

Originally posted by owdlad
THE Government is blocking the installation of nearly 500 new speed cameras amid signs that ministers are beginning to doubt the effectiveness of the devices. (from the Times)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1694858,00.html

So with a bit of luck common sense is beginning to win.

good, can we email the transport minister with our support for this rethink.

Originally posted by luce2005
my mate just got his 12th point through a red light. not good.

Obviously not a very bright chap when it comes to learning a lesson then..... was it the same camera each time as well?

no, he got 3 points for a red light camera 3 points for parking one wheel on hatchings (bit harsh!) and six for two speeding offences. yeah you would've thought he'd learnt by now hey?

Speed cameras will flash regardless of whether they have film in them or not.

Nonsense. They only flash when they have all the bits and bobs in - I think it's the same camera apparatus moved between cameras rather than not having a roll of film in them.

I think that red light cameras are the same, but have less experience with going through these.

As I frequently travel to Scarbro' I follow the M1 and then switch to the A64 York/Scarbro. There have been many changes to the layout of the motorway along that route including extremely tall masts at various intervals along the way. These resemble streetlights but are much taller and thinner. There are speed camera warning signs all along the stretch, though cameras have not been fitted all the way along.

If you drive that way you may notice roadworks and free breakdown services with speeds reduced to 40 mph in places.

These new digital cameras for measuring average speed between two points were on the news not long ago.

Dragon

specs cameras are mounted on gantries across the road and are yellow like most speed cameras.
The ones you can see on tall polls are generally either to monitor the flow of traffic, or cctv used by the police for spotting incidents and for determining who did what after the fact.

fight it dont just pay it.
ask for the photo. contest it, argue send letter after letter they will usualy drop it.
its against the law to fine somone before proven guilty in court.
i have got off with 4 speed cams. If we all contest speed cams it will not be cost effective for them, that is why they tell you that if you pay within 14 days it will cost you less.
when they send it to you check every detail your name, adress, postcode ect one wrong letter and you get away with it. they have 14 days to issue the fine after that they cant do you. send me a pm and i will tell you a sure way of getting off.
And to the answers that are not anything to do with the question. GET A LIFE.

As I frequently travel to Scarbro' I follow the M1 and then switch to the A64 York/Scarbro. There have been many changes to the layout of the motorway along that route including extremely tall masts at various intervals along the way. These resemble streetlights but are much taller and thinner. There are speed camera warning signs all along the stretch, though cameras have not been fitted all the way along.

If you drive that way you may notice roadworks and free breakdown services with speeds reduced to 40 mph in places.

These new digital cameras for measuring average speed between two points were on the news not long ago.

Dragon

SPECS system has been active on the Stocksbridge by-pass since Dec 2002

fight it dont just pay it.
ask for the photo. contest it, argue send letter after letter they will usualy drop it.
its against the law to fine somone before proven guilty in court.
i have got off with 4 speed cams. If we all contest speed cams it will not be cost effective for them, that is why they tell you that if you pay within 14 days it will cost you less.
when they send it to you check every detail your name, adress, postcode ect one wrong letter and you get away with it. they have 14 days to issue the fine after that they cant do you. send me a pm and i will tell you a sure way of getting off.
And to the answers that are not anything to do with the question. GET A LIFE.

You want to watch yourself - the police say they're going after people who try to exploit loopholes to get off motoring offences.

If you've been caught 4 times, you're a habitual speeder, and need taking off the road.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that you will find any traffic lights on a road with a speed limit higher than 40 mph.

They are all designed so that you should be able to stop well within the distance when they turn amber if travelling at the speed limit.


Stand corrected....there are quite a few traffic lights on junctions near where I live where the roads are National Speed limit. Chesterfield Road between Barlborough and Worksop being one of them.

You want to watch yourself - the police say they're going after people who try to exploit loopholes to get off motoring offences.

If you've been caught 4 times, you're a habitual speeder, and need taking off the road.


And the lawyers are saying this is harrassment, can see the coppers getting a bit of their own medicine. Maybe if they did the job properly in the first place, people wouldn't be able to exploit the loopholes. Hence no need to "go after people"

You want to watch yourself - the police say they're going after people who try to exploit loopholes to get off motoring offences.

If you've been caught 4 times, you're a habitual speeder, and need taking off the road.
I dont call 34 in a 30 and 43 in a 40 habitual speeding. we all know these are revenue camaras. I havnt stolen, raped, or murderd. the motorist is an easy target. Somone attempted to abduct my 12 year old girl and the police didnt want to know, i was told that a crime wasnt commited because he didnt actualy take her. Dont talk to me about the law. IT STINKS. We all see it in the papers everyday where real criminals are walking free. Most police officers are as frustrated about this as we are.
PS the other twice i was cought on camara the police dropped as soon as i asked for the photo, i was told that the photo was no good for evidence ????

And if thats the case then I'm sorry, but I don't believe you went on amber (not yellow) - it must have been red.

Traffic light offences carry a maximum fne of £1,000, a ban at the discretion of the magistrate and 3 points on your licence.That is if you elect to go to court and plead not guilty.

There will be a picture of you doing it as proof and you are best to hold your hands up and pay fixed penalty of £60 rather than go to court. I speak from experience on a speeding ticket which cost me £1200. In future don't go through red lights as someone may well be coming the other way on a green light and then you might have a few questions to answer.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that you will find any traffic lights on a road with a speed limit higher than 40 mph.

They are all designed so that you should be able to stop well within the distance when they turn amber if travelling at the speed limit.

What about the traffic lights on the way to Hull, at the end of the M 62 ? the limit is 70MPH or at the end dof the Parkway ????

You want to watch yourself - the police say they're going after people who try to exploit loopholes to get off motoring offences.

If you've been caught 4 times, you're a habitual speeder, and need taking off the road.Speeding in itself doesn't cause accidents. Inappropriate speed causes accidents. A lot of these cameras and the sneaky casualty reduction vans are positioned in places where lots of people speed in relation to the posted limit because the limit is inappropriately low and so they are easy pickings. That doesn't reduce casualties.

I think it often boils down to driver attitude - you see a road and think "Why is it 30? I can drive here safely at 40." - unfortunately it's not your decision to make.

The cameras wouldn't generate any revenue if people could exercise self control.

Just after the Parkway on the way to Moorgate Road, Rotherham is 50 mph.

all that moaning about cyclists going through red lights, I thought people in cars didnt do that

If there were no speed limit most people would drive at a similar speed where they felt comfortable and not an inappropriate speed where they felt unsafe. It's said that 85% of people do this and it's called not surprisingly the 85th percentile. This was supposed to be way in which speed limits were to be set. Now the authorities think that we are incapable of judging for ourselves what is a safe speed and so they set it artificially low to cater for the irresponsible 15%. That makes it seem worse because those 15% are breaking the law by a bigger margin but also so are the "ordinary" safe drivers. Like a lot of laws it is set to the lowest common denominator but enforced on the harmless easy to catch majority. The authorities than say they are keeping us safer when we weren't in danger in the first place. They say they have saved x number of lives each year. Who's lives have they saved? Have they saved mine or yours?

I thought people in cars didnt do that

Only the foolish/stupid drivers:thumbsup:

hi has any one ever been caught by one of these!? traffic light cameras!!? because i went past one eariler and i noticed a red light flash twice (on the camera part) and i wondered if its gotten me!! as i was turning right at the lights, they just tured yellow so i might have bn unlucky :(! has this happed to any one before? could you please tell me what the penatly is!!?
Thanks :(
Will you clarify this for me?

Were you looking at the little square box on top of the actual traffic light itself?

If you were, then I don't think there is anything to worry about. These infra red detectors? (not a camera) replaced the rubber pad in the road and tell the system if there is a car coming and how far away it is?

I hope I have that right. Someone will tell me if it isn't.

The penalty ought to be a period in a correctional facility - for correcting spelling, grammar and punctuation! :hihi:

clever ****

Were you looking at the little square box on top of the actual traffic light itself?

If you were, then I don't think there is anything to worry about. These infra red detectors? (not a camera) replaced the rubber pad in the road and tell the system if there is a car coming and how far away it is?

I hope I have that right. Someone will tell me if it isn't.

Actually they are microwave detectors rather than infra red example here (http://www.tseu.net/pdf/ADD003.pdf), there hasn't been any rubber pads in the roads for the last 30 years or so, these are actually inductive loops (coils of wire) burried in the surface of the tarmac and connected to detector units as shown here (http://www.tseu.net/pdf/MXED002.pdf)

Actually they are microwave detectors rather than infra red example here (http://www.tseu.net/pdf/ADD003.pdf), there hasn't been any rubber pads in the roads for the last 30 years or so, these are actually inductive loops (coils of wire) burried in the surface of the tarmac and connected to detector units as shown here (http://www.tseu.net/pdf/MXED002.pdf)
Cheers for that, I knew about the two systems, I just couldn't remember what system the microwave detectors used. I suppose they measure speed by the doppler effect. I was wondering if the red light the O.P. saw was one of the L.E.Ds flashing.

I think he may be alright. He says he was turning right on amber?

I suppose they measure speed by the doppler effect. I was wondering if the red light the O.P. saw was one of the L.E.Ds flashing.

I think he may be alright. He says he was turning right on amber?

Yes you are correct, usually theres an led indicator that illuminates when a car is detected and the relay contacts are changed over to signify to the traffic controller an aproaching vehicle.

However the LED is quite small and I would have thought it was quite hard to see whilst driving, but not impossible. Some of the newer Truvelo type speed cameras employ a flash which has a magenta coloured filter, but going through on amber wouldn't have triggered a camera if there was one installed.

Afetr 30 years of breaking the law, and not getting caught, I`ve finally got done! Sick as a parrot, but about time too!

They say they have saved x number of lives each year. Who's lives have they saved? Have they saved mine or yours?

Presumably these claims are based on reduction of road traffic fatalities or serious injury collisions. This could be attributed to safer vehicle design, improved road design, construction and layout, or more effective enforcement action - or a combination of them all.

It's all a bit irrelevant - when you get your driving licence you don't do it by driving at the speed you are comfortable with - you drive within the law. If you can't maintain this behaviour then you lose the privilege of driving - that's why there are penalty points in addition to the small fine.

fight it dont just pay it.
ask for the photo. contest it, argue send letter after letter they will usualy drop it.
its against the law to fine somone before proven guilty in court.
i have got off with 4 speed cams. If we all contest speed cams it will not be cost effective for them, that is why they tell you that if you pay within 14 days it will cost you less.
when they send it to you check every detail your name, adress, postcode ect one wrong letter and you get away with it. they have 14 days to issue the fine after that they cant do you. send me a pm and i will tell you a sure way of getting off.
And to the answers that are not anything to do with the question. GET A LIFE.

Indeed, and since you haven't been read your rights before being asked to name yourself on the NIP (anything you say may be used in court etc...), if you go to court they can't use your admission as evidence! Case dismissed.
Have yet to see anyone fail via this defence.

As a side note, Sheffield Parking Tickets only contain one date, but section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act states there should be two, the date of issue and the date of contravention, so they may be unenforcable aswell.

If that is correct about the parking tickets then they are indeed unenforceable, a case went to court recently in london on those grounds and the defendant won.

The non self incrimination is currently being tested in the european court of human rights and defences relying on it may not work at the moment.

It's all a bit irrelevant - when you get your driving licence you don't do it by driving at the speed you are comfortable with - you drive within the law. If you can't maintain this behaviour then you lose the privilege of driving - that's why there are penalty points in addition to the small fine.Irrelevant to what? I was saying that the limits are set too low and so people are prosecuted for driving too quickly for the law rather than the situation and it isn't dangerous in most instances. It's a victimless crime unless you have an accident which is unlikely if you're a decent driver.

Irrelevant to what? I was saying that the limits are set too low and so people are prosecuted for driving too quickly for the law rather than the situation and it isn't dangerous in most instances. It's a victimless crime unless you have an accident which is unlikely if you're a decent driver.

So would you apply the same logic to someone who thought the alcohol limit is set too low, therefore it should be perfectly okay to drive drunk as long as no-one is hurt. Afterall the world would be such a better place if we could choose which laws we comply with.

Oh let me guess you must be a 'decent' driver, its all the other speeders that are at fault. No-one ever admits to being a bad driver, do they?

Irrelevant to what? I was saying that the limits are set too low and so people are prosecuted for driving too quickly for the law rather than the situation and it isn't dangerous in most instances. It's a victimless crime unless you have an accident which is unlikely if you're a decent driver. hear hear. the 30mph has been around since we all had ford pops with pre stretched cables for brakes and cross ply bike tyres. the stopping distances in the highway code are wrong (FACT) at 70 its not 315 in a modern car its half that. 70 on the motorway is fine in the rain, or in the fog or heavy traffic. on a clear day with no trafic 90 would be fine.
I think the problem is, when i was first driving if you were pulled by a copper you would get a slap on the rist and a dont do it again, they used discretion but now its a revenue thing there is no discretion. Not so long ago my 12 year old was nearly abducted and when it was reported to the police they had no one to send out and i was told that there was nothing they could do because the man had not actualy commited a crime because he didnt take her,he was stopped by a member of the public. (god bless him).
the same night at 3 in the morning i went streight on at a left turn only. it is only there so you dont hold up the traffic on the ring road. i hadnt seen another car for hours but i got nicked. 2 coppers had time to sit with me for a half hour for the £30.00 fine in there 30k car but no time for an attempted child abduction. If the police want the respect back that they used to have and want credabilaty they will have to do better than this.
As a matter of interest has anyone been pulled yet and been asked to identify themselves Ie race and religion, i was given a list as long as your arm and asked to chose one. I refused this must be raceist. what has this got to do with a motoring offence.i am a black white afro greak lesbian. so what is the speed restriction any different.And before any smart arse has a go at my spelling i know all about it i am dis- disl- dislex- o sod it what a word for somone that cant spell.
Note I dont envy the police one bit and this is ment to be constructive critisisum. they are doing the job they are forced to do. may be if they would take away the ridiculus amount of paperwork they have to do we may get more police out on the road. and whileever the real criminals are walking free on stupid loop holes the motorist will always be the easy target.

So would you apply the same logic to someone who thought the alcohol limit is set too low, therefore it should be perfectly okay to drive drunk as long as no-one is hurt. Afterall the world would be such a better place if we could choose which laws we comply with.[QUOTE]




Oh let me guess you must be a 'decent' driver, its all the other speeders that are at fault. No-one ever admits to being a bad driver, do they?I'm not saying I should choose where the laws stand. I'm saying, if you care to read back on this thread, that they should be set at a point where most people feel safe using this 85th percentile thing and that is an accepted way of doing it rather than some arbitary figure. I'm also only talking about speeding and I have no time for drink drivers. Yes I am a decent driver, are you?

So would you apply the same logic to someone who thought the alcohol limit is set too low, therefore it should be perfectly okay to drive drunk as long as no-one is hurt. Afterall the world would be such a better place if we could choose which laws we comply with.

Oh let me guess you must be a 'decent' driver, its all the other speeders that are at fault. No-one ever admits to being a bad driver, do they?

let me guess you are a none driver or an officer of the law. no one is saying break the law. we are saying discretion should be used. anyone doing over 70 in the rain, snow or fog should be shot.or in jail for attempted murder. but the same on a summers night with nothing on the road is not the same.

the police used to nick you for driving like an idiot and not for the speed you are doing, we are all for that i am sure. Ie when school turns out 30 past the school is to fast but not on a sunday.

the police used to nick you for driving like an idiot and not for the speed you are doing, we are all for that i am sure. Ie when school turns out 30 past the school is to fast but not on a sunday.I got zapped by the camera on Manchester Rd at Crosspool doing a breathtaking 34mph. Various self righteous armchair motoring experts said it served me right for speeding because of school nearby, it was 9.30 pm on Saturday. They also said it served me right for other times I'd sped and not been caught but I disagree with that completely. If one speeds and isn't caught and nothing happens there is no victim of a crime so it's irrelevant. If I'd been a burglar and eventually got caught it would serve me right.

The non self incrimination is currently being tested in the european court of human rights and defences relying on it may not work at the moment.

The right to non self incrimination is an entirely seperate issue (though equally valid) to the one I mention. I'm not advocating not incriminating yourself, just that if you do and you are not cautioned *before* doing so (as is the case on NIP's at the moment) then anything you say can NOT be used in a court of law.

I just don't understand what you're trying to say Darbees - are you saying that you feel the current speed limits are inappropriate? I can certainly think of examples where this is the case and they could do with being raised. And perhaps the Highway Code should be revised to update stopping distances.

That's beside the point - the fact is that the limits are set, they are limits, and if you want to avoid punishment, then you stay within them. If you want to speed, then accept the consequences if you get caught - the same if you choose to ignore turn left signs - you took a chance and got caught (and clearly there was other traffic about, not least the police car!)

You mention that speeding on summer nights - this is in some way more acceptable? Nice warm nights when people are likely to be out and about, often in drink, when kids are playing in the streets? You've already showed yourself incapable of being aware of the presence of another car while driving - even worse if this was a highly visible police car.

As has been said, routine traffic stops of this type can lead to further disclosure of offences, e.g. possession of drugs, defective vehicles, outstanding warrants etc. etc.

The use of safety cameras for speed enforcement means that police officers aren't having to sit with you at the side of the road writing a ticket for speeding offences at that location - time that could be spent dealing with other offenders.

The reason you were asked to identify your ethnic origin is because the police are obliged to record this information to counter allegations of racism - it doesn't affect your treatment.

Oh, and by the by, police don't pay the retail price for patrol cars - like other emergency services they are given substantial discounts for a number of reasons.

out and about on the motorway or dual carriageway? As it was the 70 limit mentioned.

I just don't understand what you're trying to say Darbees - are you saying that you feel the current speed limits are inappropriate? I can certainly think of examples where this is the case and they could do with being raised. And perhaps the Highway Code should be revised to update stopping distances.

That's beside the point - the fact is that the limits are set, they are limits, and if you want to avoid punishment, then you stay within them. If you want to speed, then accept the consequences if you get caught - the same if you choose to ignore turn left signs - you took a chance and got caught (and clearly there was other traffic about, not least the police car!)

You mention that speeding on summer nights - this is in some way more acceptable? Nice warm nights when people are likely to be out and about, often in drink, when kids are playing in the streets? You've already showed yourself incapable of being aware of the presence of another car while driving - even worse if this was a highly visible police car.

Sorry Dan but I can't get the point across to you. You come across as one of the self righteous anti motorist lobby. I didn't mention speeding on summer nights and I didn't get stopped by a police car or anyone else, I was zapped by a camera. INAPPROPPRIATE speed and bad uneducated driving techniques cause accidents. Ambling along at 30mph because a sign tells you so and getting no points is no indication of your driving standard. I'm complaining that there are arbitrary speed limits set which are being enforced over zealously instead of tackling crap driving and I am not a crap driver. Have you ever had any extra driving training since passing your test?

I just don't understand what you're trying to say Darbees - are you saying that you feel the current speed limits are inappropriate? I can certainly think of examples where this is the case and they could do with being raised. And perhaps the Highway Code should be revised to update stopping distances.

That's beside the point - the fact is that the limits are set, they are limits, and if you want to avoid punishment, then you stay within them. If you want to speed, then accept the consequences if you get caught - the same if you choose to ignore turn left signs - you took a chance and got caught (and clearly there was other traffic about, not least the police car!)

You mention that speeding on summer nights - this is in some way more acceptable? Nice warm nights when people are likely to be out and about, often in drink, when kids are playing in the streets? You've already showed yourself incapable of being aware of the presence of another car while driving - even worse if this was a highly visible police car.

As has been said, routine traffic stops of this type can lead to further disclosure of offences, e.g. possession of drugs, defective vehicles, outstanding warrants etc. etc.

The use of safety cameras for speed enforcement means that police officers aren't having to sit with you at the side of the road writing a ticket for speeding offences at that location - time that could be spent dealing with other offenders.

The reason you were asked to identify your ethnic origin is because the police are obliged to record this information to counter allegations of racism - it doesn't affect your treatment.

Oh, and by the by, police don't pay the retail price for patrol cars - like other emergency services they are given substantial discounts for a number of reasons. Your answer on race makes no sence, whats race got to do with anything. I didnt say speeding was exeptable i said 70mph in the snow and fog isnt but on a bright summer night it is. it boils down to using your loaf and i did see the police car, i didnt think he would have a problem at 3 am in the morning when there was clearly no problem going streight on. O sorry might have got the price wrong on the police car. ITS STILL A WASTE OF RESORCES. I was breathalised no problem with that ni was asked to produce no problem with that. i was polite appolagetic etc. i should have had a slap on the wrist not a fine. Ps i didnt pay the fine i sent the cheque to meningitus trust insted who my mates 6 year old lost her life to. And coppied it to the Police (NO FURTHER ACTION)

So would you apply the same logic to someone who thought the alcohol limit is set too low, therefore it should be perfectly okay to drive drunk as long as no-one is hurt. Afterall the world would be such a better place if we could choose which laws we comply with.I'm not saying I should choose where the laws stand. I'm saying, if you care to read back on this thread, that they should be set at a point where most people feel safe using this 85th percentile thing and that is an accepted way of doing it rather than some arbitary figure. I'm also only talking about speeding and I have no time for drink drivers. Yes I am a decent driver, are you?

Well I stick to 30mph limits, unlike you. So i guess I must be better than decent. Is 'safe' better than decent?

I think that a 70 mph limit should stay because so many people ignore even that limit. If we changed it to 90 then we would have endless people on forums like this saying "I was only doing 98 and they gave me a ticket". In towns it needs to be 30 in some places and less in others. If I was to change anything it would be to have lower speed limits and bigger fines but also have them dealt with by human beings who are allowed to use discretion and common sense. If we had a limit of 25 in the residential areas but someone is caught late at night doing 35 then the human in charge could ignore it or just tell you off. If someone did 26 when it is foggy and children are coming out of school then they could throw the book at them.

Indeed, and since you haven't been read your rights before being asked to name yourself on the NIP (anything you say may be used in court etc...), if you go to court they can't use your admission as evidence! Case dismissed.
Have yet to see anyone fail via this defence.

As a side note, Sheffield Parking Tickets only contain one date, but section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act states there should be two, the date of issue and the date of contravention, so they may be unenforcable aswell.

i think the rear of parking tickets states 30 days from the date of issue.
i'm sure thi soffer protection on this issu. same as court summons which state 14 days from date of poatmark etc.

Well I stick to 30mph limits, unlike you. So i guess I must be better than decent. Is 'safe' better than decent?No, all you do is stick to the speed limit, that doesn't mean anything except that you stay within the law and that doesn't mean anything regarding your driving skills although you may well be a decent driver.

The point I'm trying unsuccessfully to make, because I don't think I'm arguing with people who are interested in driving, is that the speeds limits are set at the wrong levels in a lot of instances at inappropriate speeds and that may well be too high in some circumstances. I wouldn't advocate the breaking of all speed limits for a moment. What I said yesterday was that the traffic finds it's own safe speed and limits are supposed to be based on that. Based on your flawed argument if it were 50 you would do 50 because it's legal. That is nonsense and you wouldn't if it didn't feel safe (hopefully). I resent the fact that you imply I'm some maniac riding round at high speed regardless of the situation.

Indeed, and since you haven't been read your rights before being asked to name yourself on the NIP (anything you say may be used in court etc...), if you go to court they can't use your admission as evidence! Case dismissed.
Have yet to see anyone fail via this defence.

I can tell you absolutely 100% that won't work. They will do the keeper for failing to give details of the driver and that is a fine and 3 points, same as the speeding. I've tried it.

No, all you do is stick to the speed limit, that doesn't mean anything except that you stay within the law and that doesn't mean anything regarding your driving skills although you may well be a decent driver.

The point I'm trying unsuccessfully to make, because I don't think I'm arguing with people who are interested in driving, is that the speeds limits are set at the wrong levels in a lot of instances at inappropriate speeds and that may well be too high in some circumstances. I wouldn't advocate the breaking of all speed limits for a moment. What I said yesterday was that the traffic finds it's own safe speed and limits are supposed to be based on that. Based on your flawed argument if it were 50 you would do 50 because it's legal. That is nonsense and you wouldn't if it didn't feel safe (hopefully). I resent the fact that you imply I'm some maniac riding round at high speed regardless of the situation.

I didn't imply anything. Plus how is my argument flawed? I stick the the laws of the road, don't speed, jump red lights, use my mobile, drink and drive etc. Never had an acident in 20 years of driving or been pulled up by the police. Speeding seems to be the only traffic law drivers gleefully admit to breaking, only stopping to moan about being caught on camera. Is it because they feel driving over the speed limit is directly linked to their prowess behind the wheel? maybe its an ego thing. Before my responsible days of being married and a father I used to enjoy rally driving. Its the only real way to see if you're really a decent driver.

I didn't imply anything. Plus how is my argument flawed? I stick the the laws of the road, don't speed, jump red lights, use my mobile, drink and drive etc. Never had an acident in 20 years of driving or been pulled up by the police. Speeding seems to be the only traffic law drivers gleefully admit to breaking, only stopping to moan about being caught on camera. Is it because they feel driving over the speed limit is directly linked to their prowess behind the wheel? maybe its an ego thing. Before my responsible days of being married and a father I used to enjoy rally driving. Its the only real way to see if you're really a decent driver.Why did you rally drive?

I can tell you absolutely 100% that won't work. They will do the keeper for failing to give details of the driver and that is a fine and 3 points, same as the speeding. I've tried it.

Except that you ARE naming the driver, but as I said previously since they dont state your rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence act they cannot use your admission in any subsequent court appearances. Thus if you elect to go to court, who are they going to prosecute?

As for not naming the driver, it is a requirement under the RTA to show "due dilligence" in naming the driver.... BUT, imagine if there were two people in the car sharing the driving and you genuinely can't remember who was at the wheel at that specific time. Or you lent the car to friends and they all drove it. You name everyone (what more could you do) but who gets the fine?

The answer is no-one, because to be convicted of a crime you have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You can only be prosecuted if you refuse to name anyone and it's an offence to say you were driving when you are not! Convicting the wrong person would be a miscarriage of justice.

I have heard of cases where police state exactly what you have above, and told people to "toss a coin". In this situation they are comitting a criminal act by attempting to pervert the course of justice.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1538370.stm

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=8997&st=0 (still ongoing)

i think the rear of parking tickets states 30 days from the date of issue.
i'm sure thi soffer protection on this issu. same as court summons which state 14 days from date of poatmark etc.

Indeed, many councils have fallen foul of missing the "Date of Issue" and hence the recent ruling that tickets should have two dates.

The only confusion is that in this ruling the ticket had "date of contravention" and no "date of issue", whereas Sheffield tickets are the exact opposite, so I'm not entirely sure what the outcome of any appeal may be and I don't fancy getting a ticket for the laugh ;)

I just don't understand what you're trying to say Darbees - are you saying that you feel the current speed limits are inappropriate? I can certainly think of examples where this is the case and they could do with being raised. And perhaps the Highway Code should be revised to update stopping distances.

That's beside the point - the fact is that the limits are set, they are limits, and if you want to avoid punishment, then you stay within them. If you want to speed, then accept the consequences if you get caught - the same if you choose to ignore turn left signs - you took a chance and got caught (and clearly there was other traffic about, not least the police car!)

You mention that speeding on summer nights - this is in some way more acceptable? Nice warm nights when people are likely to be out and about, often in drink, when kids are playing in the streets? You've already showed yourself incapable of being aware of the presence of another car while driving - even worse if this was a highly visible police car.

As has been said, routine traffic stops of this type can lead to further disclosure of offences, e.g. possession of drugs, defective vehicles, outstanding warrants etc. etc.

The use of safety cameras for speed enforcement means that police officers aren't having to sit with you at the side of the road writing a ticket for speeding offences at that location - time that could be spent dealing with other offenders.

The reason you were asked to identify your ethnic origin is because the police are obliged to record this information to counter allegations of racism - it doesn't affect your treatment.

Oh, and by the by, police don't pay the retail price for patrol cars - like other emergency services they are given substantial discounts for a number of reasons.
O i am sorry i got the price wrong. you miss my point. what i was saying is that 70 mph in snow fog rain is to fast but leagal, and that 80 on a summers night with nothing on the road is not leagal but not to fast. As i am talking about 70 mph i would assume that you would no that i am talking motorways, where you dont see many folk walking about. All i am saying is. Because of legislation the police are not allowed to use descretion and they should. and just for the record i have class 3, class 1, advanced driving,defensive driving, and have just scored 100% in a risk assesment drive with the rac. with a clean driving licence and no crash or bump in 26 years. And i also teach off road driving and help the police with off road recovery and drive off road for the mountin rescue. apart from that i havnt a clue obviusly. thank you for the insult. Very best regards. Viper

Except that you ARE naming the driver, but as I said previously since they dont state your rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence act they cannot use your admission in any subsequent court appearances. Thus if you elect to go to court, who are they going to prosecute?

As for not naming the driver, it is a requirement under the RTA to show "due dilligence" in naming the driver.... BUT, imagine if there were two people in the car sharing the driving and you genuinely can't remember who was at the wheel at that specific time. Or you lent the car to friends and they all drove it. You name everyone (what more could you do) but who gets the fine?

The answer is no-one, because to be convicted of a crime you have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You can only be prosecuted if you refuse to name anyone and it's an offence to say you were driving when you are not! Convicting the wrong person would be a miscarriage of justice.

I have heard of cases where police state exactly what you have above, and told people to "toss a coin". In this situation they are comitting a criminal act by attempting to pervert the course of justice.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1538370.stm

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=8997&st=0 (still ongoing)Sorry Magilla but you're wrong, they may not do you for the speeding or whatever offence but they will do the keeper for not naming the driver and they WILL get points as it is a lagal obligation to provide this info if requested, they make sure that you have then committed a crime. If I were the keeper and someone else was driving I'd name them.

............................

Sorry Magilla but you're wrong, they may not do you for the speeding or whatever offence but they will do the keeper for not naming the driver and they WILL get points as it is a lagal obligation to provide this info if requested, they make sure that you have then committed a crime. If I were the keeper and someone else was driving I'd name them.

Not if you honestly can't identify them. There've been cases that have gone to court and the defendant has won.

Not heard that one. On which stretch of the M1 are they situated?


The camera you refer to can read your registration plate and can measure your average speed over a set distance.

Slow Down - There is no escape!

At the moment there are some in the M1 roadworks near Luton where the speed limit is 40 mph for mile after mile.

These roadworks are adding extra lanes to the M1 and are set to last until December 2008.

Not if you honestly can't identify them. There've been cases that have gone to court and the defendant has won.Magilla is suggesting you don't fill in the NIP and incriminate yourself. He would get done for that.

The Duty to Provide Information

The registered keeper of the vehicle, has a legal obligation, under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, to provide the name of the person who was driving their vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence.

This legal obligation is not restricted to just the registered keeper. If any person has it within their power to give information that may lead to the drivers identification, then they are bound by the same requirement.

The relevant legislation is the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

52(2) A fixed penalty notice must give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence to which it relates as are necessary for giving reasonable information about the alleged offence.


52(3) A fixed penalty notice must state:

(a) The period during which, by virtue of Section 78(1) of this Act, proceedings cannot be brought against any person for the offence to which the notice relates, being the period of 21 days following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified in the notice, (Referred to as the suspended enforcement period)
(b) the amount of the fixed penalty, and
(c) the designated officer for a magistrates court to whom and the address at which the fixed penalty may be paid.

Not really a reply to 1985Simon, but just a "warning"....
The good ol' Derbyshire Constab's Camera Partnership boys have been out and about in sunny Dronfield for the last few months, with a bit of a Heath Robinson affair which looks painfully like an old car headlamp mounted on an orange box and a tripod.
Mainly on the road from Dronny to Unstone, but I hear they aim to target Dronfield bottom on occasion in the future.
So take heed! - It's a 20 mph zone in places, not the 30 that you might assume!!

The Duty to Provide Information

The registered keeper of the vehicle, has a legal obligation, under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, to provide the name of the person who was driving their vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence.

This legal obligation is not restricted to just the registered keeper. If any person has it within their power to give information that may lead to the drivers identification, then they are bound by the same requirement.

This is what is currently being challenged in the european court of human rights as the right not to incriminate yourself is infringed and you're being forced to give evidence without being cautioned.

This is what is currently being challenged in the european court of human rights as the right not to incriminate yourself is infringed and you're being forced to give evidence without being cautioned.Fact is that the person has committed the offence and is trying to get off on technicalities.

This is what is currently being challenged in the european court of human rights as the right not to incriminate yourself is infringed and you're being forced to give evidence without being cautioned.


so WHEN the challenge is successful , people can argue the toss.
but as its on the statute books it must be conformed too.
if the reform bill currently with the House of Lords is passed, it will also give a fixed penalty to non disclosure offenders or accused offenders.

a caution is not a prerequisite of a NIP notified incident using speed measuring equipment because this is usually a conditional offer.
if you accept the conditional offer - cautioning is not required.if you want to proceed to court which is your right you will be cautioned either orally or in writing.

completion of the form however IS compulsory.
the signing of the document is not compulsory.

Not really a reply to 1985Simon, but just a "warning"....
The good ol' Derbyshire Constab's Camera Partnership boys have been out and about in sunny Dronfield for the last few months, with a bit of a Heath Robinson affair which looks painfully like an old car headlamp mounted on an orange box and a tripod.
Mainly on the road from Dronny to Unstone, but I hear they aim to target Dronfield bottom on occasion in the future.
So take heed! - It's a 20 mph zone in places, not the 30 that you might assume!!


And they're there, RIGHT NOW!
(17.22, Friday 22nd)

I'll try to keep this clear as I've obviously confused you by trying to respond to two different posts in one message.

Darbees
INAPPROPPRIATE speed and bad uneducated driving techniques cause accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit is inappropriate speed - the speed limit should be a primary factor when selecting a speed for a particular speed for a road - it's the I in IPSGA.

Poor driving technique is also a primary factor.

I'm complaining that there are arbitrary speed limits set which are being enforced over zealously instead of tackling crap driving and I am not a crap driver.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Both should be enforced with equal vigour in my opinion.

You come across as one of the self righteous anti motorist lobby.
Oh dear. Driving is part of my profession. I would say I'm anti-speeding - part of this stems from seeing first hand the effects of accidents involving speed. I'm sorry if you feel I'm self-righteous.

Have you ever had any extra driving training since passing your test?
Only the four weeks fulltime driver training and examination plus 12 months supervised driving that comes as part of my work.

viper123
Your answer on race makes no sence, whats race got to do with anything.
I was attempting to provide information relating to this section of your post:
As a matter of interest has anyone been pulled yet and been asked to identify themselves Ie race and religion, i was given a list as long as your arm and asked to chose one. I refused this must be raceist. what has this got to do with a motoring offence.

I didnt say speeding was exeptable i said 70mph in the snow and fog isnt but on a bright summer night it is.
Depending on many factors including the type of road, weather conditions, visibility and vehicle you're driving then 70mph may be appropriate. In this country it would only be legal on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway.

i did see the police car
Bit stupid to do something illegal then surely? I think you've only got yourself to blame for the police actually doing their job.

what i was saying is that 70 mph in snow fog rain is to fast but leagal
Only from a speed limit point of view - there is also dangerous driving and driving without due care an attention that may be applicable - hence the need for robust road policing.

Because of legislation the police are not allowed to use descretion and they should
Of course the police can and do use discretion - in your particular case they must have thought a fine appropriate, probably because you made an illegal maneuver in plain view of their car. This is not something the majority of drivers would do.

thank you for the insult.
I apologise for saying you have poor observation skills - it would appear that it's actually common sense that's lacking :P

Sounds like quotes straight from the coppers handbook Dan. Are you one? If that's the case I'll not waste any more time trying to make sensible points on this matter as it's pointless. We'll never agree on this stuff so I'm going to agree to differ and leave it at that.

I don't work for the police, no. If I did, I fail to see what difference it would make - are you suggesting the police are incapable of sensible debate?

I don't work for the police, no. If I did, I fail to see what difference it would make - are you suggesting the police are incapable of sensible debate?
I think he is an ambulance driver. (Or Paramedic)

Most of the police I've spoken too (and I've known a few current or ex traffic police) believe that above 70 mph on the motorway isn't necessarily inappropriate speed (depending on conditions obviously). They all said that they wouldn't even consider stopping a car travelling at less than 85mph, although you obviously can't rely on that.

This is an example of the police demonstrating discretion. Something that cameras are unable to do.

I don't work for the police, no. If I did, I fail to see what difference it would make - are you suggesting the police are incapable of sensible debate?
Yes they are at the roadside. I have never spoken to a police person esp in traffic who doesn't know it all. Their job is to uphold the law which is fine, I'm talking about how the laws are formed and whether or not they are reasonable. I'm not advocating breaking the law I just want some of them changing.

Well, I certainly can think of a few that could be introduced or amended :)

As I said, I can also think of roads where the speed limit could safely be tweaked without adverse effect. The motorway is one of these.

I think he is an ambulance driver.
*Bites tongue :hihi:

I think the newer type camera one with the purple lens is digital and never runs out of film and as already been said can get you for speeding as well as jumping red lights these are normally activated by a car etc driving over 2 loops in the road after the stop line .