Avon and Somerset Police using redlight camera for speeding

[_dobbo_]

surveyor_101 said:

The driver knew it was a camera and the webiste confirmed it was redlight as it had been for year! No speed camera sign on the stretch so the driver was worried about being caught on a red , not speeding as they stated on their website we was a redlight camera.

Are you even thinking about what you're writing?

So a driver speeds past a camera, gets caught, but it's not fair because he thought it was only a red light camera?

I bet if it had been a coach caught speeding in the same place you'd have been posting demanding the coach company was forced to be closed and the owner sent to prison.

[tapereel]

surveyor_101 said:

singlecoil said:

There are no rules about signage for speed cameras.

There is a rule about speeding though...

There are rules if they wish to recover their costs, which they do. Even if they they dont follow them, it does not effect the tickets issued.

you are 9 years behind the curve I'm afraid. Scrapped March 2007.

even when the rules did apply the sign for the camera wasn't compulsory and it made no difference if a sign was there or not.

do keep up at the back.

[surveyor_101]

_dobbo_ said:

Are you even thinking about what you're writing?

So a driver speeds past a camera, gets caught, but it's not fair because he thought it was only a red light camera?

I bet if it had been a coach caught speeding in the same place you'd have been posting demanding the coach company was forced to be closed and the owner sent to prison.

The website shows they camera is redlight only, only in the foi section does it say it was reactivated.

[Gavia]

surveyor_101 said:

The website shows they camera is redlight only, only in the foi section does it say it was reactivated.

So what? What point are you making? There is no duty on them to have the camera accurately described and even if there was, it's highly unlikely that it would be a valid defence for you.

[Pete317]

Gavia said:

surveyor_101 said:

The website shows they camera is redlight only, only in the foi section does it say it was reactivated.

So what? What point are you making? There is no duty on them to have the camera accurately described and even if there was, it's highly unlikely that it would be a valid defence for you.

It's dishonest and devious, that's why.

If you want to punish people for technical offences then you really ought to be technically accurate yourself - if nothing else.

Edited by Pete317 on Thursday 27th October 07:45

[RobinOakapple]

Pete317 said:

It's dishonest and devious, that's why.

If you want to punish people for technical offences then you really ought to be technically accurate yourself - if nothing else.

Edited by Pete317 on Thursday 27th October 07:45

And if you want to post about it, you also need to be technically accurate.

There's no such thing as a technical offence.

An act is either an offence or it isn't.

[Greendubber]

Pete317 said:

Gavia said:

surveyor_101 said:

The website shows they camera is redlight only, only in the foi section does it say it was reactivated.

So what? What point are you making? There is no duty on them to have the camera accurately described and even if there was, it's highly unlikely that it would be a valid defence for you.

It's dishonest and devious, that's why.

If you want to punish people for technical offences then you really ought to be technically accurate yourself - if nothing else.

Edited by Pete317 on Thursday 27th October 07:45

Whats a technical offence?

[TooMany2cvs]

Greendubber said:

Whats a technical offence?

An offence he doesn't agree with.

[Greendubber]

TooMany2cvs said:

Greendubber said:

Whats a technical offence?

An offence he doesn't agree with.

Ahhh I see.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

It's amusing to read this thread and observe supposedly grown men acting like mardy children, because they've been caught breaking the rules and then want to stamp their feet and complain that's 'it's not fair' !

If you can't understand why it's dangerous to speed through that complex junction and by doing so your putting other road users and pedestrians at risk, then you need to retake your test, oh and grow a pair jeez.

[surveyor_101]

Mr Teddy Bear said:

It's amusing to read this thread and observe supposedly grown men acting like mardy children, because they've been caught breaking the rules and then want to stamp their feet and complain that's 'it's not fair' !

If you can't understand why it's dangerous to speed through that complex junction and by doing so your putting other road users and pedestrians at risk, then you need to retake your test, oh and grow a pair jeez.

says Brake spokesperson

Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 27th October 13:16

[surveyor_101]

surveyor_101 said:

Mr Teddy Bear said:

It's amusing to read this thread and observe supposedly grown men acting like mardy children, because they've been caught breaking the rules and then want to stamp their feet and complain that's 'it's not fair' !

If you can't understand why it's dangerous to speed through that complex junction and by doing so your putting other road users and pedestrians at risk, then you need to retake your test, oh and grow a pair jeez.

says Brake spokesperson

the junction is not considered an accident blackspot, which is supposed to be the criteria for having a speed camera, in area were collisions have been a problem. If speed is so crucial why it it 40mph till just before the camera? if speed was an issue the entire stretch should be a 30. Instead they have used this redlight camera as a way to get a speed camera around normal justification and put it 100 yards from a limit change sign. I can't help but conclude the reason for this is entirely revenue based and not road safety.

I understand the importance of having the redlight cameras on complex junctions.




Indeed the police have never in my 16 years of driving this road carried out mobile speed enforcement on this stretch.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 27th October 13:16

[surveyor_101]

surveyor_101 said:

surveyor_101 said:

Mr Teddy Bear said:

It's amusing to read this thread and observe supposedly grown men acting like mardy children, because they've been caught breaking the rules and then want to stamp their feet and complain that's 'it's not fair' !

If you can't understand why it's dangerous to speed through that complex junction and by doing so your putting other road users and pedestrians at risk, then you need to retake your test, oh and grow a pair jeez.

says Brake spokesperson

the junction is not considered an accident blackspot, which is supposed to be the criteria for having a speed camera, in area were collisions have been a problem. If speed is so crucial why it it 40mph till just before the camera? if speed was an issue the entire stretch should be a 30. Instead they have used this redlight camera as a way to get a speed camera around normal justification and put it 100 yards from a limit change sign. I can't help but conclude the reason for this is entirely revenue based and not road safety.

I understand the importance of having the redlight cameras on complex junctions.




Indeed the police have never in my 16 years of driving this road carried out mobile speed enforcement on this stretch and also have no speed camera signage.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 27th October 13:16

[singlecoil]

surveyor_101 said:

the junction is not considered an accident blackspot, which is supposed to be the criteria for having a speed camera...

Says who?

I would have thought that the criterion for having a speed/red light camera at a traffic light was the likelihood of people speeding or jumping red lights.

Are you suggesting that because there haven't been a number of serious accidents at that spot before that it's ok for people to do either?

[Type R Tom]

singlecoil said:

surveyor_101 said:

the junction is not considered an accident blackspot, which is supposed to be the criteria for having a speed camera...

Says who?

I would have thought that the criterion for having a speed/red light camera at a traffic light was the likelihood of people speeding or jumping red lights.

Are you suggesting that because there haven't been a number of serious accidents at that spot before that it's ok for people to do either?

There were a few between 04-06 but very few in recent years (is the camera working?). If I was to guess I would say it was either linked to those accidents or started off as a traffic light camera which was then upgraded to speeding too.

Actually the answer is on streetview, in 09 and 12 there were no bar makings, they have been added later.

[TooMany2cvs]

surveyor_101 said:

[Durzel]

To be fair you need to be a bit special to see any camera on the road and think "what the hell I'll speed past it anyway".

[WJNB]

Bit confused reading all this.
Are ALL red light cameras able to record speeding or only if painted yellow?
Maybe best to 'assume' all red light cameras could record speeding offences.

[SS2.]

WJNB said:

Are ALL red light cameras able to record speeding or only if painted yellow?
Maybe best to 'assume' all red light cameras could record speeding offences.

Not all RLCs enforce 'speed on green' at traffic lights.

Some do ie Redspeed.

Some don't ie Gatso Type 36.

Whether they're painted grey, yellow or shocking pink makes no difference.

[rewc]

SS2. said:

Not all RLCs enforce 'speed on green' at traffic lights.

Some do ie Redspeed.

Some don't ie Gatso Type 36.

Whether they're painted grey, yellow or shocking pink makes no difference.

As there was/is no requirement to paint a Red Light Camera yellow it is likely that if a camera is painted yellow that it is a speed camera or if a red light camera it is also speed on green. All roadside speed cameras I see are painted yellow, there may be many nationally that are not but I can't think of any.
When the Poole red light one was converted to additionally function as speed on green it was painted yellow.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/end-of-the-road...