Speeding Yet Again - They're Having A Laugh!

[fnkysknky 10]

Speed cameras are supposed to be set at the limit + 10% + 2mph i.e. 30 + 3 + 2 = 35mph so he was unlucky to be caught.

[Cyclone 10]

I tried to find some evidence for this 10% or 7% (as i thought it was) or 10% +2 rule, but I can't actually find any.

[BoroughGal 10]

Originally posted by Ravenger

Cameras have no discretion. They can't tell the difference between someone driving at 35mph on an empty road on a bank holiday at 4am and someone driving at the same speed on the same road when it's crowded with school children at 3:30pm.

 

That's why they're fundamentally unfair.

 

Or some might say this is the reason why they ARE fair.

[fnkysknky 10]

10% + 2mph is the guideline from ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) - it is only a guideline but forces usually stick to it.

 

http://www.speedguard.co.uk/index.htm

 

http://www.speedaware.org.uk/Default.asp?PAGE=FAQ - click on 'At what speed do I commit an offence?'

 

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm

 

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

 

You can always read the APCO document http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf but it ain't short

[Snook 10]

Originally posted by Whelk

That was a quote from Dickens not my own words.

 

They didn't have speed cameras when he was around did they? Sorry, I thought that was your opinion, not that you were just posting random quotes that have nothing to do with how you feel.

 

You'd be amazed at what people can do if they get together behind a course... I don't think the government are going to lose any money if the speed limit was raised by 5 mph, because people will still speed, no matter what the law... its human nature.

 

I think the 30, 40 and 50 are fine, but the speed limit on the motorway is a joke. It should be moved to 90, and nothing at all will change.

[InvalidUser 10]

Originally posted by Whelk

Well the murder rate is going through the roof, muggings and violent crime are soaring, gun crime is now an everyday reality but what the hey lets trap 70 year old 'Albert Tatlocks' nick £60 out of their pension, make them feel like sh++ and con everyone into thinking that we care aboutt peoples safety.

I agree with you about the police having better things to do but this was one of the arguments for the introduction of cameras; it would free up the police to concentrate on more serious crime.

 

But cameras can't replace police patrols on the streets. If I drive past the one on the Parkway at 50 mph it'll flash, if the guy behind weaves past it at 30 mph whilst pi$$ed out of his brain it won't.

 

I’d like to see more police on the roads dealing with the drunk, uninsured & dangerous drivers that the cameras miss.

[spiffymonkey 10]

Originally posted by InvalidUser

But cameras can't replace police patrols on the streets. If I drive past the one on the Parkway at 50 mph it'll flash, if the guy behind weaves past it at 30 mph whilst pi$$ed out of his brain it won't.

 

I’d like to see more police on the roads dealing with the drunk, uninsured & dangerous drivers that the cameras miss.

 

I think that this was the point. Police officer stops a driver doing 57 in a 50 zone, and as he's stood next to the car a lunatic swerves past narrowly avoiding another car and away he goes, quite obviously drunk. At best the policeman can radio in the number plate. If he hadn't had to mess about with the speeding ticket he'd have still been on the road, catching the so called 'bad drivers' (as opposed to the 'good drivers' who are beyond reproach, apparently).

[MobileB 10]

Ok i will not give you the full story.

 

The incident happened at 6.30 am on Dec 27. He had driven through a small village where the speed limit was 30 mph either side of a national speed limit area. There was absolutely no pedestrians about. The mobile speed unit was situated just prior to the national speed limit sign in a layby. It was in a stretch of around 300 yards where the houses to the village finish and the nsl starts. There is no footpath just road into woodland as there is after the nsl sign.He slowed to 30mph to go through the village. I have looked at the notice myself it states 34mph. He says he remembers the van parked in the layby and wondered what is was.

 

Given these people who man these things are supposed to be off duty officers, how sad a life as that guy got to be manning one of them things at 6.30 am on Dec 27?

 

Now, the law is the law people. The risk of accidents happening people. Do you still think this law is not a stealth tax?

 

There are some ppl on here who know my father and me! With his illness, needless to say, we've told him not pay it until the last minute, he might get away with it! (and yeah, he does see the funny side).

[Cols 10]

MobileB

Go on, tell us where it happened (pm me if you don't want everyone to know). Reason I ask is because I avoid area's that are over zealous. Places like Matlock and North Wales spring to mind. If it's a touristy area I'll mail the tourist office and tell them that I won't be spending money by visiting there anymore.

By the way, the reason why the coppers are there at 6:30 am is that they're earning good money in overtime.

[Mooseyb 10]

Originally posted by Cols

By the way, the reason why the coppers are there at 6:30 am is that they're earning good money in overtime.

 

The urban myth strikes back. Police can not earn overtime to do duties such as that.

[Guest]

a speed limit is a speed limit. A law is a law. By breaking the speed limit you risk the chance of being caught. He was caught.

 

There is a reason why there are speed limits. If people didn't spend their time rushing about everywhere the roads would be a lot safer.

[MobileB 10]

Originally posted by robbie

a speed limit is a speed limit. A law is a law. By breaking the speed limit you risk the chance of being caught. He was caught.

 

There is a reason why there are speed limits. If people didn't spend their time rushing about everywhere the roads would be a lot safer.

 

Robbie.

 

Sheffield Council writes to you and said you owe them some money for business rates. You say to them "What letter". They say "we posted it to you on such a date." You say. "I dont know anything about this. What business rates?" They say "Tough, we posted. You didnt reply with 28 days therefore you owe it"

 

The Law is the Law. You owe it because they say you do. You can only contest if you can prove you did not receive the letter. Try proving that.

 

Would you hope that Sheffield Council showed a bit of common sense or would you say the Law is the Law?