Avon and Somerset Police using redlight camera for speeding

[SS2.]

rewc said:

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.

Not necessarily.

[spookly]

I don't get this thread. I'm mostly anti-camera, but putting a camera near a junction is exactly where they are most needed, if indeed they are needed at all.

Junctions, including those with lights, are where a lot of incidents do occur.

I don't support use of cameras except in real areas of danger/previous incidents.... but if I was caught I'd just suck it up and chalk it down to my own stupidity/lack of observation.

I never bothered researching it, but I always assumed a red light camera *might* be able to catch speeding too, so never sped through them either.

[surveyor_101]

Type R Tom said:

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.

They must of been added in the last 12 months.

[tapereel]

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.

I think you are being hypocritical.
You are challenging the police by saying that they are hiding cameras.
It would seem that you dislike police enforcing the law without first informing you where they are going to be doing that. In particular, the laws regarding excess speed are what interests you.
I don’t think anyone needs the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to work out that you want to know where the police are enforcing the limits because you want to defy the laws and manipulate the enforcement of them. That itself is a dishonest and devious act.
So there you are you are a hypocrite.

[tapereel]

surveyor_101 said:

Type R Tom said:

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.

They must of been added in the last 12 months.

They must have been added in the last 12 months.

[singlecoil]

surveyor_101 said:

Type R Tom said:

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.

They must have been added in the last 12 months.

So what?

[Digby]

tapereel said:

I think you are being hypocritical.
You are challenging the police by saying that they are hiding cameras.
It would seem that you dislike police enforcing the law without first informing you where they are going to be doing that. In particular, the laws regarding excess speed are what interests you.
I don’t think anyone needs the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to work out that you want to know where the police are enforcing the limits because you want to defy the laws and manipulate the enforcement of them. That itself is a dishonest and devious act.
So there you are you are a hypocrite.

If only they warned everyone of everything speed enforcement related. Millions of drivers would drive more slowly. We can't have that, though..

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I'm surprised that the o.p doesn't turn to stone during the hours of daylight!

[surveyor_101]

Digby said:

If only they warned everyone of everything speed enforcement related. Millions of drivers would drive more slowly. We can't have that, though..

So enforcement is more important than prevention.

Honestly I know the funding has been cut but I see the crazy uninursed, unlicensed, uninsured shed for 3 weeks driving round town like a nutter delivering takeaways and I have reported it very week, and guess what still jumping red lights and getting away with it. 3 weeks and to takeaways I have reported her working at and she was out again tonight.

[singlecoil]

Digby said:

tapereel said:

I think you are being hypocritical.
You are challenging the police by saying that they are hiding cameras.
It would seem that you dislike police enforcing the law without first informing you where they are going to be doing that. In particular, the laws regarding excess speed are what interests you.
I don’t think anyone needs the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to work out that you want to know where the police are enforcing the limits because you want to defy the laws and manipulate the enforcement of them. That itself is a dishonest and devious act.
So there you are you are a hypocrite.

If only they warned everyone of everything speed enforcement related. Millions of drivers would drive more slowly. We can't have that, though..

They do warn everybody. With signs like this...

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Your best bet is to get a lift with her then and see how she does it.

[Digby]

surveyor_101 said:

So enforcement is more important than prevention.

That would also seem to be the case with black painted red light cameras I came across in London. They blended in perfectly with their surroundings; thus ensuring a steady trickle of income for those who, let's be honest, may take the pee by only a second at lights they know can take an absolute age to change.

[Digby]

singlecoil said:

They do warn everybody. With signs like this...

And like this.

[surveyor_101]

Mr Teddy Bear said:

Your best bet is to get a lift with her then and see how she does it.

Just have a car registered to someone other than yourself and they can't touch you. Only otherwise law abiding drivers.

[Pete317]

RobinOakapple said:

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.

I said, "technical offence", NOT "technically an offence"

If you don't like the terminology I used, try "regulatory offence", or, more commonly, "absolute liability offence"

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

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.

I think you are being hypocritical.
You are challenging the police by saying that they are hiding cameras.
It would seem that you dislike police enforcing the law without first informing you where they are going to be doing that. In particular, the laws regarding excess speed are what interests you.
I don’t think anyone needs the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to work out that you want to know where the police are enforcing the limits because you want to defy the laws and manipulate the enforcement of them. That itself is a dishonest and devious act.
So there you are you are a hypocrite.

You read too many things wrong, and make far too many assumptions

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

RobinOakapple said:

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.

I said, "technical offence", NOT "technically an offence"

If you don't like the terminology I used, try "regulatory offence", or, more commonly, "absolute liability offence"

I don't like the terminology you used either. If it's ok with you I will try 'offence'.

[OMNIO]

The cameras around my way always used to be grey but slowly but surely they've turned yellow and the tell tale bars have appeared on the road. Since then I have just assumed they double up as speed cameras and been cautious though them.

No need to do an emergency stop on yellow as the red light camera activates a second or so after red. If you go through on yellow at the speed limit then (in my experience) youll be fine.

If they turn red and you haven't already gone over the pressure sensors (Mrs texting Bint in a micra on the A10 the other day) then you'll get done.
If they're on green and got go through at 50+mph in a 40 (mr aggressive in his 320d - on the A10 again...) then you'll get done.

Simple really.

[OMNIO]

surveyor_101 said:

So enforcement is more important than prevention.

Honestly I know the funding has been cut but I see the crazy uninursed, unlicensed, uninsured shed for 3 weeks driving round town like a nutter delivering takeaways and I have reported it very week, and guess what still jumping red lights and getting away with it. 3 weeks and to takeaways I have reported her working at and she was out again tonight.

Given the lack of physical policing on the road I'm sorely tempted to pay in the region of £30 for a foreign plate to stick on my bike. The met police don't seem to be authorised to pursue bikes so I'd be pretty much untouchable.

I just know that because I'm a law abiding bloke rather than a promising young footballer human rights expert minority I'll be fked over somehow.

Edited by OMNIO on Thursday 27th October 22:04

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

RobinOakapple said:

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.

I said, "technical offence", NOT "technically an offence"

If you don't like the terminology I used, try "regulatory offence", or, more commonly, "absolute liability offence"

I don't like the terminology you used either. If it's ok with you I will try 'offence'.

Knock yourself out