Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

It doesn't matter what the limit is, because whatever it is it would be safe to exceed it a good proportion of the time. They are meant to be conservative by design.

So we have a law which is designed to be observed broken by people simply going about their daily business.

FTFY

Do you need some tissues?

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

It doesn't matter what the limit is, because whatever it is it would be safe to exceed it a good proportion of the time. They are meant to be conservative by design.

So we have a law which is designed to be broken by people simply going about their daily business.

It's not designed to be broken. It's just that it could safely be broken at times, just like the excess alco law can be safely broken at times for some. Driving without insurance, for example, can be safely broken too.
The line in the sand nature of speed limits makes it easy to administer & makes it simple for the end user to know when they are breaking it & leaving themselves open to prosecution or not.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

It doesn't matter what the limit is, because whatever it is it would be safe to exceed it a good proportion of the time. They are meant to be conservative by design.

So we have a law which is designed to be broken by people simply going about their daily business.

It's not designed to be broken. It's just that it could safely be broken at times, just like the excess alco law can be safely broken at times for some. Driving without insurance, for example, can be safely broken too.
The line in the sand nature of speed limits makes it easy to administer & makes it simple for the end user to know when they are breaking it & leaving themselves open to prosecution or not.

It's nothing like the excess alco law.

The speed limits, when set conservatively as you say, will be broken by people in the course of their everyday activities unless they are careful not to

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

It doesn't matter what the limit is, because whatever it is it would be safe to exceed it a good proportion of the time. They are meant to be conservative by design.

So we have a law which is designed to be broken by people simply going about their daily business.

It's not designed to be broken. It's just that it could safely be broken at times, just like the excess alco law can be safely broken at times for some. Driving without insurance, for example, can be safely broken too.
The line in the sand nature of speed limits makes it easy to administer & makes it simple for the end user to know when they are breaking it & leaving themselves open to prosecution or not.

It's nothing like the excess alco law.

The speed limits, when set conservatively as you say, will be broken by people in the course of their everyday activities unless they are careful not to

It's like the excess alco law in that it's possible to safely break it.
People will break Sec 3 RTA unless they are careful not to in their everyday business. Everybody has broken at some point & it takes more effort not to than sticking to the speed limit.

[tapereel]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

It doesn't matter what the limit is, because whatever it is it would be safe to exceed it a good proportion of the time. They are meant to be conservative by design.

So we have a law which is designed to be broken by people simply going about their daily business.

It's not designed to be broken. It's just that it could safely be broken at times, just like the excess alco law can be safely broken at times for some. Driving without insurance, for example, can be safely broken too.
The line in the sand nature of speed limits makes it easy to administer & makes it simple for the end user to know when they are breaking it & leaving themselves open to prosecution or not.

It's nothing like the excess alco law.

The speed limits, when set conservatively as you say, will be broken by people in the course of their everyday activities unless they are careful not to

We'll be careful not to then. It isn't difficult.
If you are not careful not to and you are detected then that is entirely your own fault. If you determine to think it is alright to defy a limit because you perceive the limit inappropriate or it is safe to do so and you are detected it is entirely your own fault.
The thing you should do is 'be careful not to'.

[turbobloke]

tapereel said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

It doesn't matter what the limit is, because whatever it is it would be safe to exceed it a good proportion of the time. They are meant to be conservative by design.

So we have a law which is designed to be broken by people simply going about their daily business.

It's not designed to be broken. It's just that it could safely be broken at times, just like the excess alco law can be safely broken at times for some. Driving without insurance, for example, can be safely broken too.
The line in the sand nature of speed limits makes it easy to administer & makes it simple for the end user to know when they are breaking it & leaving themselves open to prosecution or not.

It's nothing like the excess alco law.

The speed limits, when set conservatively as you say, will be broken by people in the course of their everyday activities unless they are careful not to

We'll be careful not to then. It isn't difficult.
If you are not careful not to and you are detected then that is entirely your own fault. If you determine to think it is alright to defy a limit because you perceive the limit inappropriate or it is safe to do so and you are detected it is entirely your own fault.
The thing you should do is 'be careful not to'.

'Be careful not to'...be detected?

[Zedboy1200]

Not really that motivated to trawl back on all the pages of this post, suffice to say I'll continue to use hazards and or flash to warn others that there is a black spot so dangerous 'the man' is there in person monitoring speed.

[Zedboy1200]

Not really that motivated to trawl back on all the pages of this post, suffice to say I'll continue to use hazards and or flash to warn others that there is a black spot so dangerous 'the man' is there in person monitoring speed.

[rewc]

Zedboy1200 said:

Not really that motivated to trawl back on all the pages of this post, suffice to say I'll continue to use hazards and or flash to warn others that there is a black spot so dangerous 'the man' is there in person monitoring speed.

I thought 'the man' had long ago announced that speed camera enforcement was not only undertaken at black spots and locations with a history of collisions. Dorset Police as an example give three criteria:

1. Regular Sites: We are required to publish annual collision and casualty figures and the number of Notice Of Intended Prosecutions from each site

2. Speed complaint sites: also known as community concern sites. We are not required to provide site statistics for speed complaint locations and they are therefore not produced or published on our website, as we may only visit these sites once or twice. Once the location has been visited, we then assess whether further visits are necessary.

3. Police Officer or Safer Neighbourhood Team enforcement - this can be any location, at any time day or night. Dorset Police are not required to produce collision, casualty or offence statistics.

http://www.dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/contact/licence-r...

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

It's like the excess alco law in that it's possible to safely break it.
People will break Sec 3 RTA unless they are careful not to in their everyday business. Everybody has broken at some point & it takes more effort not to than sticking to the speed limit.

People don't drive with alcohol in them as part of their daily business, at least they shouldn't, so your first argument falls flat.
As for sec 3 RTA, that's an essential and integral part of safe driving.
Complying with some conservatively and/or arbitrarily set speed limit, not so much

[tapereel]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

It's like the excess alco law in that it's possible to safely break it.
People will break Sec 3 RTA unless they are careful not to in their everyday business. Everybody has broken at some point & it takes more effort not to than sticking to the speed limit.

People don't drive with alcohol in them as part of their daily business, at least they shouldn't, so your first argument falls flat.
As for sec 3 RTA, that's an essential and integral part of safe driving.
Complying with some conservatively and/or arbitrarily set speed limit, not so much

You just make those up. When I have been involved in the setting of speed limits, especially those that are lower than normal for the road, maybe termed 'conservatively set' by you; they are always very carefully considered. If they are to be lowered below the default limit then a great deal of justification has always been required for that to occur. Maybe, just maybe the officials responsible predict what they are about to do will cause controvesy and complaints so they require justifications before they make these low or 'conservative' limits.
Now I do not know if you have made any complaints about these limits in a reasoned or justified way but if you don't agree with a limit just make a complaint. Remember to justify that complaint though.
I know of no speed limit that is "arbitrarily set", that phrase is simply bollix IMHO. Perhaps you should either stop using it or justify it.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

It's like the excess alco law in that it's possible to safely break it.
People will break Sec 3 RTA unless they are careful not to in their everyday business. Everybody has broken at some point & it takes more effort not to than sticking to the speed limit.

People don't drive with alcohol in them as part of their daily business, at least they shouldn't, so your first argument falls flat.

It's applicable & true in the terms I set, that is that like speeding it's possible to transgress & still be safe.
Some people's daily lives involve alcohol.

Pete317 said:

As for sec 3 RTA, that's an essential and integral part of safe driving.

You can be inconsiderate & still relatively safe. It usually takes two careless/inconsiderate people meeting for it to be problematic & result in a collision.

[AA999]

vonhosen said:

Surely the idea is enforcement ....

I know I've chopped your quote a little but surely the idea is safety?


If the scamvans are not addressing safety then all they are doing is generating income at the expense of the inevitable percentage that creep over the limit.

[vonhosen]

AA999 said:

vonhosen said:

Surely the idea is enforcement ....

I know I've chopped your quote a little but surely the idea is safety?

You have, which removes the context surrounding the bit you have quoted.

AA999 said:

If the scamvans are not addressing safety then all they are doing is generating income at the expense of the inevitable percentage that creep over the limit.

Speed limits are about more than just safety. They are also about noise, pollution, quality of life, traffic flow management etc etc.

[rewc]

vonhosen said:

Speed limits are about more than just safety. They are also about noise, pollution, quality of life, traffic flow management etc etc.

Good to know and all that talk about being hit at 30 rather than 40 etc is not the prime reason for them.

[tapereel]

rewc said:

vonhosen said:

Speed limits are about more than just safety. They are also about noise, pollution, quality of life, traffic flow management etc etc.

Good to know and all that talk about being hit at 30 rather than 40 etc is not the prime reason for them.

On the contrary; the prime reason is safety, vonhosen has however simpy listed a number of other reasons for them.

[AA999]

tapereel said:

On the contrary; the prime reason is safety, vonhosen has however simpy listed a number of other reasons for them.

Given that the scam vans do not make a point of parking at known accident black spots and often park up at 'random' locations in order to provide vonhosen's argument of 'enforcement-any/every-where', then its hard to argue that the prime reason is safety.
The prime reason seems to be "to catch people speeding".

Speed limits in terms of scam vans is all about catching people speeding, again under vonhosen's argument it seems to be fine because even if its not about safety then its about road noise reduction to increase people's quality of life (and property prices) who have bought properties near to roads.
Its also about traffic management, in that if a scam van is parked up on the side of the road, it magically makes traffic flow better.
And the all important pollution, a scam van magically makes your engine more efficient.

[GC8]

vonhosen said:

rich888 said:

vonhosen said:

jbsportstech said:

I don't see an Issue you telling people to slow down, which is what the police allegedly want?!?!?

They don't have an issue with you telling people to slow down, they do have an issue with you wilfully obstructing them gaining secondary evidence of an offence being committed.

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.

Authorities have a duty of care to motorists which they are clearly neglecting to do by prohibiting other road users to advise other motorists of potentially dangerous road conditions, the safety camera operators are fully aware of these dangerous road conditions, but choose not to advise road users of said dangers aside from recording speeds attained, rather than intervening to prevent an accident, which potentially makes them personally liable for any deaths or injuries which they could have prevented, but chose not to due to their job incentivised bonuses... and this attitude towards road safety is all so wrong.

The Police have a duty to uphold the law through enforcement. The local authorities etc have provided the waring signs that the motorists have already ignored. The enforcement is the next stage.

So if you think people are too fast for the circumstances, warn them if you like.
However if you do this where the Police have moved to a stage of enforcing said limit due to warnings already being ignored, then they may ask a court to judge whether the purpose of your actions was to obstruct them getting the evidence. The courts are confident they can tell from your actions relative to the circumstances.

Itll depend on the outcome of an interview or an admission: no admission then no prosecution. To suggest that itll end up in court is fanciful. If it did and the beaks find you guilty, then theres no chance at all that it will be pursued through a real court when you appeal.

[vonhosen]

GC8 said:

vonhosen said:

rich888 said:

vonhosen said:

jbsportstech said:

I don't see an Issue you telling people to slow down, which is what the police allegedly want?!?!?

They don't have an issue with you telling people to slow down, they do have an issue with you wilfully obstructing them gaining secondary evidence of an offence being committed.

You can warn people to slow down all you want away from where the process of amassing evidence has started.

Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.

Authorities have a duty of care to motorists which they are clearly neglecting to do by prohibiting other road users to advise other motorists of potentially dangerous road conditions, the safety camera operators are fully aware of these dangerous road conditions, but choose not to advise road users of said dangers aside from recording speeds attained, rather than intervening to prevent an accident, which potentially makes them personally liable for any deaths or injuries which they could have prevented, but chose not to due to their job incentivised bonuses... and this attitude towards road safety is all so wrong.

The Police have a duty to uphold the law through enforcement. The local authorities etc have provided the waring signs that the motorists have already ignored. The enforcement is the next stage.

So if you think people are too fast for the circumstances, warn them if you like.
However if you do this where the Police have moved to a stage of enforcing said limit due to warnings already being ignored, then they may ask a court to judge whether the purpose of your actions was to obstruct them getting the evidence. The courts are confident they can tell from your actions relative to the circumstances.

Itll depend on the outcome of an interview or an admission: no admission then no prosecution. To suggest that itll end up in court is fanciful. If it did and the beaks find you guilty, then theres no chance at all that it will be pursued through a real court when you appeal.

The courts don't need admissions, in the cases stated (such as Glendinning) they denied that's what they were doing, not admitted it. The courts are happy they can tell from the actions in the circumstances & that's from the appeal courts. If people want to put up their money for appeals they are of course welcome to.

[GC8]

Meanwhile, in the realworld, where the CPS will not prosecute cases where there is real evidence...