81mph in 50mph - speed camera van - advice please?
Discussion
FlyingFin said:
Loon.....
Please enlighten us to the problem.....
That was a good while ago and a lot of discussion has happened since, but here's the problem as I saw it. Please enlighten us to the problem.....
He got pinged speeding and within days got a NIP advising him of a court summons through the post.
A NIP doesn't do that.
LoonR1 said:
That was a good while ago and a lot of discussion has happened since, but here's the problem as I saw it.
He got pinged speeding and within days got a NIP advising him of a court summons through the post.
A NIP doesn't do that.
You read an awful lot in to people's term of phrase. He got pinged speeding and within days got a NIP advising him of a court summons through the post.
A NIP doesn't do that.
You know he then went on to clarify that he said he got an NIP and surmised that he would be going to court.
But don't let that prevent you from your one man mission to accuse everyone else in SPl of lying the whole time.
Johnnytheboy said:
You read an awful lot in to people's term of phrase.
You know he then went on to clarify that he said he got an NIP and surmised that he would be going to court.
But don't let that prevent you from your one man mission to accuse everyone else in SPl of lying the whole time.
Comprehension really is a dying art. I was asked about an old comment, I prefaced that by stating that there had been "lots of discussion since". You chose to ignore that and continue as if that's as still my stance. You know he then went on to clarify that he said he got an NIP and surmised that he would be going to court.
But don't let that prevent you from your one man mission to accuse everyone else in SPl of lying the whole time.
Clear enough?
LoonR1 said:
Johnnytheboy said:
You read an awful lot in to people's term of phrase.
You know he then went on to clarify that he said he got an NIP and surmised that he would be going to court.
But don't let that prevent you from your one man mission to accuse everyone else in SPl of lying the whole time.
Comprehension really is a dying art. I was asked about an old comment, I prefaced that by stating that there had been "lots of discussion since". You chose to ignore that and continue as if that's as still my stance. You know he then went on to clarify that he said he got an NIP and surmised that he would be going to court.
But don't let that prevent you from your one man mission to accuse everyone else in SPl of lying the whole time.
Clear enough?
Johnnytheboy said:
So you're saying he was lying or he is lying, or he's just wrong?
Seriously? You seriously can't comprehend this?Go back and read the bit where I said "there has been a lot of discussion since". Tell me what you think this means.
You may well find that the OP and I have discussed it and resolved the issue already.
if it helps, i got caught doing 87mph in a 50mph zone. wrote a very apologetic letter, explained circs, and got away with SP30 6pts and a £500 fine.
circumstances were: northbound on the A3 (3 lane carriageway, 70mph limit), speed drops down to 50mph and a mile up the road there is a camera and it drops down to 2 lanes. doing 86mph in the 70 zone, went through the boundary still doing 86mph and slowed down for the camera. plod were on the boundary where the 70 meets the 50.
pretty opportunistic, but there we are. i'd had no convictions, no insurance claims, and told them i'd sold the "sports car" (Z4m Coupe) for a "family saloon" (M5).
circumstances were: northbound on the A3 (3 lane carriageway, 70mph limit), speed drops down to 50mph and a mile up the road there is a camera and it drops down to 2 lanes. doing 86mph in the 70 zone, went through the boundary still doing 86mph and slowed down for the camera. plod were on the boundary where the 70 meets the 50.
pretty opportunistic, but there we are. i'd had no convictions, no insurance claims, and told them i'd sold the "sports car" (Z4m Coupe) for a "family saloon" (M5).
LoonR1 said:
And?
Step 1 dictate inappropriate li t
Step 1a most obey it, albeit through gritted teeth
Step 2 carry out enforcement
Step 3 nothing
Or
Step 1 dictate inappropriate speed limit
Step 1a most ignore it
Step 2 carry out enforcement
Step 3 people caught speeding
Whose fault is It?
Those who set the inappropriate limit.Step 1 dictate inappropriate li t
Step 1a most obey it, albeit through gritted teeth
Step 2 carry out enforcement
Step 3 nothing
Or
Step 1 dictate inappropriate speed limit
Step 1a most ignore it
Step 2 carry out enforcement
Step 3 people caught speeding
Whose fault is It?
aww999 said:
I agree with Clivey. Can you explain why we're wrong?
You're saying it's the fault of the people who set the speed limit if you get caught speeding. That's pretty tellingIf you don't agree with a speed limit as I pretty well never do then do what I do and speed. When you get caught though, blame yourself for being daft enough to. That's what I do and it's worked well for quite a while now.
The idea that consciously choosing to ignore a speed limit and then blaming someone else for your own voluntary actions is ludicrous.
LoonR1 said:
You're saying it's the fault of the people who set the speed limit if you get caught speeding. That's pretty telling
If you don't agree with a speed limit as I pretty well never do then do what I do and speed. When you get caught though, blame yourself for being daft enough to. That's what I do and it's worked well for quite a while now.
The idea that consciously choosing to ignore a speed limit and then blaming someone else for your own voluntary actions is ludicrous.
The problem is inappropriate limits, not people exceeding them. - Some of them are so ridiculous that any reasonable man will disobey and are to be treated with the same contempt as someone telling you not to breathe.If you don't agree with a speed limit as I pretty well never do then do what I do and speed. When you get caught though, blame yourself for being daft enough to. That's what I do and it's worked well for quite a while now.
The idea that consciously choosing to ignore a speed limit and then blaming someone else for your own voluntary actions is ludicrous.
But for the limits, we wouldn't be "speeding". Do you think it's morally "wrong" to exceed the speed limit?
The hand-wringing attitude is what stifles technical progress and holds us back. In the 70's & 80's, we imagined that ultra-high speed super highways would be commonplace in the 21st Century...yet in terms of the Motorway speed limit we've not moved on for 50 years. We should be building our roads to accommodate 100+ mph speeds, not farting about legislating everyone to be stuck behind a bicycle.
The responsible thing to do is to ignore the backwards nonsense and make progress. Literally.
aww999 said:
LoonR1 said:
Clivey said:
Those who set the inappropriate limit.
Oh dear.First look to others: For example - It's their fault as the limit is set wrong.
Then circumstance: For example - I was rushing to an emergency
Then yourself: I was speeding and I got caught. Normally justified by circumstances
This is what many people do but it isn't especially helpful because effectively you are making yourself a victim of others and circumstance, in other words "There's nothing I can do, it's not my fault"
The more constructive and helpful response as to where the blame lies:
First look to yourself: I was speeding and I got caught
Circumstance...
Others...
This way you are taking ownership of the problem and are in control of what you do to avoid a repeat etc.
Devil2575 said:
Typical response to a problem, in this case speeding ticket, as to where the blame lies.
First look to others: For example - It's their fault as the limit is set wrong.
Then circumstance: For example - I was rushing to an emergency
Then yourself: I was speeding and I got caught. Normally justified by circumstances
This is what many people do but it isn't especially helpful because effectively you are making yourself a victim of others and circumstance, in other words "There's nothing I can do, it's not my fault"
The more constructive and helpful response as to where the blame lies:
First look to yourself: I was speeding and I got caught
Circumstance...
Others...
This way you are taking ownership of the problem and are in control of what you do to avoid a repeat etc.
So your solution is to solve the problem by obeying the problem limit I.E. being a sheep. First look to others: For example - It's their fault as the limit is set wrong.
Then circumstance: For example - I was rushing to an emergency
Then yourself: I was speeding and I got caught. Normally justified by circumstances
This is what many people do but it isn't especially helpful because effectively you are making yourself a victim of others and circumstance, in other words "There's nothing I can do, it's not my fault"
The more constructive and helpful response as to where the blame lies:
First look to yourself: I was speeding and I got caught
Circumstance...
Others...
This way you are taking ownership of the problem and are in control of what you do to avoid a repeat etc.
Errr...no.
In this case, that doesn't solve anything apart from not getting a fine / penalty points. You're left with all of the other negatives including that you're still going too slowly, which in some cases is more dangerous.
I'm human; I'm not going to blindly accept a load of tosh that's dictated by spineless, self-serving politicians. I take responsibility by standing-up for what I think is right whenever I can. If women, homosexuals etc. etc. didn't break a few laws, we we wouldn't have equal rights today. Same thing with all of the other gibberish.
PaulPqwerty said:
A lot of interesting and diverse arguments on here. I write as a keen driver as well as a retired cop who spent several years on Traffic investigating many crashes.
From the police perspective I'd say there are two views; the political arguments from senior officers who want to reassure the Home Office that they're doing their bit to reduce crashes and bringing in the money. While the guys doing the job on the roads, generally say; it's not speed that kills, it's driving like a T**t. For example, if speed kills there should be many dead Traffic officers every week, as officers all over the country often exceed over 100mph going to incidents. And blue lights and lots of noise don't stop you from crashing and very often don't even wake people up to your presence.
Back in the 80s when there were lots of Traffic officers out there, if the offence wasn't too severe you'd see if the offender passed the attitude test. Were they contrite, or did they want an argument; if so the response would be, "You can argue your case in court". If someone was doing 50 in a 30 at 15:00, you'd book them. If they're doing 50 in a 30 at 03:00 you'd have a word. Camera's don't take account of the time of day, weather conditions, or density of traffic.
70mph is legal on a motorway even if it's dark, the traffic is nose to tail and it's pouring with rain. 80mph isn't, even if it's 04:00 on a spring morning, dry road, good visibility, no traffic. Of course it doesn't make sense, it's politics.
Personally I sympathise with the guy who was caught. I've been driving cars and motorbikes for 48 years; I passed the IAM 41 years ago and became a Police Advanced Driver 27 years ago, and I still have moments when I suddenly realise I'm over the speed limit, I'm human. Sure the guy was having a whizz, but he'll probably receive a greater punishment than a first offence burglar. The police enforce the law, it doesn't mean they agree with it all.
My favourite speed limit is the first average speed section as you leave Macclesfield towards the Cat and Fiddle. It's 50mph, but with the severity of the corners I couldn't achieve it even when I had my Ariel Atom, so if you manage a ticket there I'd give Toto Wolff a call.
sums the situation up perfectly. to be fair,if it was only points,fines and bans it would not be so bad. the fact that people are being jailed on occasion (admittedly for the higher end speeds) for doing something that causes no problems to anyone else does not seem right ,when other offences which do impact others see lesser punishments.From the police perspective I'd say there are two views; the political arguments from senior officers who want to reassure the Home Office that they're doing their bit to reduce crashes and bringing in the money. While the guys doing the job on the roads, generally say; it's not speed that kills, it's driving like a T**t. For example, if speed kills there should be many dead Traffic officers every week, as officers all over the country often exceed over 100mph going to incidents. And blue lights and lots of noise don't stop you from crashing and very often don't even wake people up to your presence.
Back in the 80s when there were lots of Traffic officers out there, if the offence wasn't too severe you'd see if the offender passed the attitude test. Were they contrite, or did they want an argument; if so the response would be, "You can argue your case in court". If someone was doing 50 in a 30 at 15:00, you'd book them. If they're doing 50 in a 30 at 03:00 you'd have a word. Camera's don't take account of the time of day, weather conditions, or density of traffic.
70mph is legal on a motorway even if it's dark, the traffic is nose to tail and it's pouring with rain. 80mph isn't, even if it's 04:00 on a spring morning, dry road, good visibility, no traffic. Of course it doesn't make sense, it's politics.
Personally I sympathise with the guy who was caught. I've been driving cars and motorbikes for 48 years; I passed the IAM 41 years ago and became a Police Advanced Driver 27 years ago, and I still have moments when I suddenly realise I'm over the speed limit, I'm human. Sure the guy was having a whizz, but he'll probably receive a greater punishment than a first offence burglar. The police enforce the law, it doesn't mean they agree with it all.
My favourite speed limit is the first average speed section as you leave Macclesfield towards the Cat and Fiddle. It's 50mph, but with the severity of the corners I couldn't achieve it even when I had my Ariel Atom, so if you manage a ticket there I'd give Toto Wolff a call.
Guybrush said:
How strange (not) that the van was placed on the straight bit of road, where it's safer and easier to go faster than the stupidly low limit. One could become a bit cynical.
I was on the A623 between Stockport and Chesterfield a couple of weeks ago, similar kind of road to the snake pass , not many places to overtake 50 limit and a couple of decent straights.But on the straight where you can safely overtake sits the camera van effectively making overtaking downright dangerous as you want to be on the wrong side of the road for the least amount of time.
I was in a van following 2 artics at 40mph , got stuck behind them for miles as they were down to 25mph on the hairpins
Crazy
Clivey said:
So your solution is to solve the problem by obeying the problem limit I.E. being a sheep.
Errr...no.
In this case, that doesn't solve anything apart from not getting a fine / penalty points. You're left with all of the other negatives including that you're still going too slowly, which in some cases is more dangerous.
I'm human; I'm not going to blindly accept a load of tosh that's dictated by spineless, self-serving politicians. I take responsibility by standing-up for what I think is right whenever I can. If women, homosexuals etc. etc. didn't break a few laws, we we wouldn't have equal rights today. Same thing with all of the other gibberish.
Not my solution. I speed pretty well everywhere and all the time traffic permitting. I just don't blame others if I get caught. I blame myself for a lack of observation. The chances of getting caught are infinitesimal when you look at how often you can speed. Open your eyes amd you're unlikely to getErrr...no.
In this case, that doesn't solve anything apart from not getting a fine / penalty points. You're left with all of the other negatives including that you're still going too slowly, which in some cases is more dangerous.
I'm human; I'm not going to blindly accept a load of tosh that's dictated by spineless, self-serving politicians. I take responsibility by standing-up for what I think is right whenever I can. If women, homosexuals etc. etc. didn't break a few laws, we we wouldn't have equal rights today. Same thing with all of the other gibberish.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff