Avon and Somerset Police using redlight camera for speeding
Discussion
singlecoil said:
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..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 said:
You do realise if you start writing sense you will be termed a troll.
People might slow done even more if they put speed camera signs up along that stretch so people like the driver at work don't think they can speed as it's only a red light camera. I would rather the police prevent an accident with the adauaate signage And correct info on there site than run a stealth camera. That has not prevented any of the collisions were it was placed to.surveyor_101 said:
People might slow done even more if they put speed camera signs up along that stretch so people like the driver at work don't think they can speed as it's only a red light camera. I would rather the police prevent an accident with the adauaate signage And correct info on there site than run a stealth camera. That has not prevented any of the collisions were it was placed to.
C'mon, what speed was "your colleague" tugged for?surveyor_101 said:
tapereel said:
You do realise if you start writing sense you will be termed a troll.
People might slow done even more if they put speed camera signs up along that stretch so people like the driver at work don't think they can speed as it's only a red light camera. I would rather the police prevent an accident with the adauaate signage And correct info on there site than run a stealth camera. That has not prevented any of the collisions were it was placed to.The real answer is to remove camera signs and use a lot more covert and discrete enforcement so you cannot predict where enforcement is going to take place but you know it is taking place somewhere.
That would require less resource and funnily-enough will require far fewer tickets to be issued to be effective in lowering speeds.
I must suggest it.
surveyor_101 said:
People might slow done even more if they put speed camera signs up along that stretch so people like the driver at work don't think they can speed as it's only a red light camera. I would rather the police prevent an accident with the adauaate signage And correct info on there site than run a stealth camera. That has not prevented any of the collisions were it was placed to.
Off topic, but are you really a surveyor? Who corrects your spelling and grammar? I'd be pretty angry receiving a report written in your style. tapereel said:
singlecoil said:
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..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.
Given that it obviously doesn't work so well and given that they are there to stop people speeding, what else may slow people down?
Cameras? That doesn't work too well, does it?
Guess what works perfectly, however? People flashing their headlights and giving a thumbs down gesture - a sort of warning sign of a camera ahead if you will. In fact, that works so well, you can be fined for doing it. The reason you can be fined for slowing people down is because it slows people down and as I said, we can't have that now, can we?
tapereel said:
singlecoil said:
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..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.
I bet in the case of the camera in the opening post thousands of people managed to drive through it without incident at around the same time this massive injustice took place.
Digby said:
Greendubber said:
Indeed, heaven forbid people take a bit of personal responsibility for their own actions.
Like the actions of those putting profit before yours and my safety.Digby said:
Heaven forbid they use cameras and limits as intended.
To enforce the default urban speed limit, on an urban main road junction with relatively poor sight lines?It doesn't in principle bother me if red light camera is also for speed. The road in the OP should still be 40mph for the lights though.
There are way too many limits set unnecessarily low in this country. The camera infested 50's popping up everywhere are totally mystifying, and I am sure there is a direct link between artificially low limits and the increase in drivers playing with their phones. This used to be something mostly limited to vehicles stopped at lights, in queues or moving in very slow traffic. Now I see it on Motorways in average speed zones or in holdups on roads like the managed motorways.
There are way too many limits set unnecessarily low in this country. The camera infested 50's popping up everywhere are totally mystifying, and I am sure there is a direct link between artificially low limits and the increase in drivers playing with their phones. This used to be something mostly limited to vehicles stopped at lights, in queues or moving in very slow traffic. Now I see it on Motorways in average speed zones or in holdups on roads like the managed motorways.
cmaguire said:
The road in the OP should still be 40mph for the lights though.
Perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't.The fact is, though, that it ISN'T a 40. It's a 30. It was a 30 in 2009, with the camera present, according to Streetview. The limit hasn't changed since...
"I didn't think the limit was right" isn't an allowable defence to a charge of exceeding the speed limit. But I'd quite like to hear somebody try it in court.
Digby said:
Greendubber said:
Indeed, heaven forbid people take a bit of personal responsibility for their own actions.
Like the actions of those putting profit before yours and my safety. Heaven forbid they use cameras and limits as intended.The speed limits are there to regulate and manage traffic. If someone decides that they are not appropriate and use that as an reason to ignorethem then they are not observing the intent of the speed limit.
You need to rethink and change your attitude towards the limits and the enforcement of them as your present attitude will lead to you being prevented from drivig for a while at some stage. For your information the intent of the points system is to encourage drivers to 1, comply and 2, to remove the danger they cause to compliant users of the road network.
If you want to make speed limits and associated regulations optional or subject to driver test then you ned to develop that system and propose it to a sympathetic MP to have it considered by those who make the legislation. Good luck with that.
cmaguire said:
It doesn't in principle bother me if red light camera is also for speed. The road in the OP should still be 40mph for the lights though.
There are way too many limits set unnecessarily low in this country. The camera infested 50's popping up everywhere are totally mystifying, and I am sure there is a direct link between artificially low limits and the increase in drivers playing with their phones. This used to be something mostly limited to vehicles stopped at lights, in queues or moving in very slow traffic. Now I see it on Motorways in average speed zones or in holdups on roads like the managed motorways.
Speed limits are set by hghways authorities who, I am certain and have witnessed, give the limit very careful consideration. Maybe they should co-opt a pistonheads representative onto the local committees.There are way too many limits set unnecessarily low in this country. The camera infested 50's popping up everywhere are totally mystifying, and I am sure there is a direct link between artificially low limits and the increase in drivers playing with their phones. This used to be something mostly limited to vehicles stopped at lights, in queues or moving in very slow traffic. Now I see it on Motorways in average speed zones or in holdups on roads like the managed motorways.
tapereel said:
Speed limits are set by hghways authorities who, I am certain and have witnessed, give the limit very careful consideration. Maybe they should co-opt a pistonheads representative onto the local committees.
It is high up in government where somebody more pragmatic is required. Managed motorways and average speed zones should be scrapped (bar the protection of workers during works). And whosoever is responsible for the lead-up to the Dartford Tunnel should be incarcerated for a level of stupidity that must be costing society billions.
tapereel said:
Speed limits are set by hghways authorities who, I am certain and have witnessed, give the limit very careful consideration. Maybe they should co-opt a pistonheads representative onto the local committees.
There was a cock up in Somerset when buffer zones of gradually reducing speed limits were imposed leading into built up areas. My memory is not infallible but I think that was under a Lib Dem led county council and the buffer zones were removed by the subsequent Conservative led administration.TooMany2cvs said:
Perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't.
The fact is, though, that it ISN'T a 40. It's a 30. It was a 30 in 2009, with the camera present, according to Streetview. The limit hasn't changed since...
"I didn't think the limit was right" isn't an allowable defence to a charge of exceeding the speed limit. But I'd quite like to hear somebody try it in court.
100 yards before the lights until about 18months ago, it was a 50! When they resurfaced the toneway dual track that had been 50 for years with a low accident rate they changed it to a 40. They changed the signage before the traffic regulation order was even processed! So for months it wasn't even officially a 40.The fact is, though, that it ISN'T a 40. It's a 30. It was a 30 in 2009, with the camera present, according to Streetview. The limit hasn't changed since...
"I didn't think the limit was right" isn't an allowable defence to a charge of exceeding the speed limit. But I'd quite like to hear somebody try it in court.
It has always been 30 a 100 yards before the lights. Most people do more than 30 along here. Themcamera got our driver at 37 so must not clock drivers till 35 plus.
Also all the speed cameras here were switched off in 2013 as the camera partnership closed. The council said they didn't want to run the cameras. The in 2015 the police bought them for £1 and started re opening sites and it looks like they switched this camera then and didn't tell anyone or update their own records.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Friday 28th October 09:58
surveyor_101 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't.
The fact is, though, that it ISN'T a 40. It's a 30. It was a 30 in 2009, with the camera present, according to Streetview. The limit hasn't changed since...
"I didn't think the limit was right" isn't an allowable defence to a charge of exceeding the speed limit. But I'd quite like to hear somebody try it in court.
100 yards before the lights until about 18months ago, it was a 50!The fact is, though, that it ISN'T a 40. It's a 30. It was a 30 in 2009, with the camera present, according to Streetview. The limit hasn't changed since...
"I didn't think the limit was right" isn't an allowable defence to a charge of exceeding the speed limit. But I'd quite like to hear somebody try it in court.
surveyor_101 said:
When they resurfaced the toneway dual track that had been 50 for years with a low accident rate they changed it to a 40. They changed the signage before the traffic regulation order was even processed! So for months it wasn't even officially a 40.
Lovely, an' all, but that wasn't where your colleague was nicked. So it's utterly irrelevant.surveyor_101 said:
It has always been 30 a 100 yards before the lights. Most people do more than 30 along here.
That's nice, dear.surveyor_101 said:
So Them camera got our drive at 37 so must not clock drivers till 35 plus.
Damn near a quarter above the limit, then.surveyor_101 said:
Also all the speed cameras here were switched off in 2013 as the camera partnership closed. The council said they didn't want to run the cameras. The in 2015 the police bought them for £1 and started re opening sites and it looks like they switch this camera them and didn't tell anyone.
That's nice, dear.Let's face it - he was bang to rights. Three points and a ton, or a morning of tea and biccies.
<light dawns> Unless he was already pushing his luck, either to a ban or to being barred from your company insurance, and you're going to be a driver down as a result...? In which case, more fool him.
surveyor_101 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't.
The fact is, though, that it ISN'T a 40. It's a 30. It was a 30 in 2009, with the camera present, according to Streetview. The limit hasn't changed since...
"I didn't think the limit was right" isn't an allowable defence to a charge of exceeding the speed limit. But I'd quite like to hear somebody try it in court.
100 yards before the lights until about 18months ago, it was a 50! When they resurfaced the toneway dual track that had been 50 for years with a low accident rate they changed it to a 40. They changed the signage before the traffic regulation order was even processed! So for months it wasn't even officially a 40.The fact is, though, that it ISN'T a 40. It's a 30. It was a 30 in 2009, with the camera present, according to Streetview. The limit hasn't changed since...
"I didn't think the limit was right" isn't an allowable defence to a charge of exceeding the speed limit. But I'd quite like to hear somebody try it in court.
It has always been 30 a 100 yards before the lights. Most people do more than 30 along here. Them camera got our drive at 37 so must not clock drivers till 35 plus.
Also all the speed cameras here were switched off in 2013 as the camera partnership closed. The council said they didn't want to run the cameras. The in 2015 the police bought them for £1 and started re opening sites and it looks like they switch this camera them and didn't tell anyone.
No I am saying 40/50 limit then drops and to a 30 and it's just convenient you have 100 yards and then a speed camera and it's no camera sign so it. It a deterant so it's not reducing speed. People are doing more than 30 daily I just must of not gone more than 33/5 through here sing may 2015 as I have not had a ticket. They must be printing money
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff