Thoughts on this - must speed traps be visible?

[fast dave]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1521202874775...

[Aretnap]

I can't be bothered watching what I presume is a daft video on Facebook, but to answer the question in the thread title there's no requirements for speed traps to be visible and there never has been - it's an urban myth, pure and simple. If that's the bloke with the camera's premise, it's certainly a daft video.

[Dave Hedgehog]

i don't know why they are moaning about, the last points i was awarded the officer was crouched behind a wall with only his head and the gun visible, he did put his hat and hi vis coat back on before he stopped me thou

still not as bad as the copper who did my mate who was up a tree, scared him half to death when he jumped out of it to stop him lol

[Dave Hedgehog]

Aretnap said:

I can't be bothered watching what I presume is a daft video on Facebook, but to answer the question in the thread title there's no requirements for speed traps to be visible and there never has been - it's an urban myth, pure and simple. If that's the bloke with the camera's premise, it's certainly a daft video.

I suspect the confusion came from some speed enforcement guidelines which mentioned things like visibility, not hiding etc, but there was a NB saying failure to follow guidelines does not affect the right to prosecute (or words to that effect) which means they are pretty much ignored

[750turbo]

Another report. (From the Northern Daily Mail)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/video-snea...

But, this bit says:

"Scottish Government document on Safety Camera use states: “Vans or other substantive vehicles used for safety camera deployment must be clearly identifiable as such."

So is this true or typical media cak?

[Cat]

750turbo said:

Another report. (From the Northern Daily Mail)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/video-snea...

But, this bit says:

"Scottish Government document on Safety Camera use states: “Vans or other substantive vehicles used for safety camera deployment must be clearly identifiable as such."

So is this true or typical media cak?

That video doesn't show a vehicle being used for safety camera deployment so any guidance in relation to that is irrelevant. To best of my knowledge all the vehicles used for enforcement by camera partnerships up here are clearly marked as such.

Cat

[Nos Es Spurius]

750turbo said:

Another report. (From the Northern Daily Mail)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/video-snea...

But, this bit says:

"Scottish Government document on Safety Camera use states: “Vans or other substantive vehicles used for safety camera deployment must be clearly identifiable as such."

So is this true or typical media cak?

Undoubtedly cak , it is the Record after all. The quote used by them relates to static cameras and camera vans ( hence the reason why it quotes from the safety camera partnership ) .

This partnership has no input on how cops on the beat target speeders. There are certain rules such as not shooting through the windscreen glass etc but nothing on how visible you should be.

Whether an unmarked car is being put to good use parked up at the side of the road is another issue, I personally would much prefer to see it used to look for drivers on their phones or driving like diddys than doing this.

As for the two buffoons who filmed it? A little ignorance and access to garbage written on the internet by "experts" is all the reason they need to be obnoxious. It would have been interesting if the two cops had stopped somebody and these two had decided to intervene, as hopefully they would have had the balls to arrest them for obstruction.

As for this making the papers, I wouldn't expect the Record to check facts as it is nothing but a poorly written comic at the best of times and the fact it's now on the Daily Fail probably says everything you need to know about how newsworthy this actually is.

Edited by Nos Es Spurius on Friday 22 August 13:11

[Mk3Spitfire]

Aretnap said:

I can't be bothered watching what I presume is a daft video on Facebook, but to answer the question in the thread title there's no requirements for speed traps to be visible and there never has been - it's an urban myth, pure and simple. If that's the bloke with the camera's premise, it's certainly a daft video.

Well put.

[ging84]

i knew i would regret clicking that link
it just started playing some video at me while i was scrambling trying to shut it up
i hate facebook

[Bigends]

Wonder why the Cops didnt stay put and carry on with speed enforcement and tell the filmer to sod off if they if they were in the right

[Bigyoke]

Bigends said:

Wonder why the Cops didnt stay put and carry on with speed enforcement and tell the filmer to sod off if they if they were in the right

Maybe they couldn't be bothered to argue with some t*@t with a camera who gets his jolly's creating confrontational situations with Police so he can put videos of it on-line.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Bigyoke said:

Maybe they couldn't be bothered to argue with some t*@t with a camera who gets his jolly's creating confrontational situations with Police so he can put videos of it on-line.

This.