Avon and Somerset Police using redlight camera for speeding

[_dobbo_]

surveyor_101 said:

Point is they got him even without the proper signage in place. He could of been (and many others) prevented from speeding had the published accurate information on their website.

What you're saying is that this guy regularly checks the website to see which cameras might catch him, then only slows down to obey the speed limit for the cameras he believes to be active.

So getting caught isn't fair because he'd have slowed to the limit had he known this particular camera was active.

Got it. I'm weeping for the poor guy getting caught in such an elaborate trap.

[TooMany2cvs]

surveyor_101 said:

Hiding the purpose of a speed camera seems to me to have no tangible benefit to road safety.

Is this going to slow him down in the future?

[surveyor_101]

TooMany2cvs said:

Is this going to slow him down in the future?

Yes he is now a fully paid up member of brake.

[singlecoil]

surveyor_101 said:

Point is they got him even without the proper signage in place. He could of been (and many others) prevented from speeding had the published accurate information on their website. Hiding the purpose of a speed camera seems to me to have no tangible benefit to road safety.

So what do you reckon, is he likely to speed again?

When you think about it (ironic laugh) the system that is in place is ideal for dealing with people like him. Either he will slow down (win) or he will be caught again and eventually taken off the road (win). What's not to like?

Oh, and by the way, its 'could HAVE been', not 'could OF been'. Confusing the two after you have been told about it several times makes you seem a bit dense.

[surveyor_101]

_dobbo_ said:

What you're saying is that this guy regularly checks the website to see which cameras might catch him, then only slows down to obey the speed limit for the cameras he believes to be active.

So getting caught isn't fair because he'd have slowed to the limit had he known this particular camera was active.

Got it. I'm weeping for the poor guy getting caught in such an elaborate trap.

My point is if its about road safety lets get the speeds down, if its about enforcement and revenue generation lets not pretend otherwise.

[singlecoil]

surveyor_101 said:

My point is if its about road safety lets get the speeds down, if its about enforcement and revenue generation lets not pretend otherwise.

Yes it's about enforcement, no it's not about revenue.

Think about it (another ironic laugh) the more enforcement the less revenue. It would be self defeating.

[tapereel]

surveyor_101 said:

_dobbo_ said:

What you're saying is that this guy regularly checks the website to see which cameras might catch him, then only slows down to obey the speed limit for the cameras he believes to be active.

So getting caught isn't fair because he'd have slowed to the limit had he known this particular camera was active.

Got it. I'm weeping for the poor guy getting caught in such an elaborate trap.

My point is if its about road safety lets get the speeds down, if its about enforcement and revenue generation lets not pretend otherwise.

You seem to be very confused.

If you and your 'pal' think slowing down improved road safety them why do you think it is OK to manipulate speed and traffic light enforcement systems?

If you already know that it is safer to drive within the regulations then why not do so wthout any further encouragement?

Forget looking at websites that tell you what the cameras are possibly doing and get on with driving safely.

[Gavia]

surveyor_101 said:

Point is they got him even without the proper signage in place. He could of been (and many others) prevented from speeding had the published accurate information on their website. Hiding the purpose of a speed camera seems to me to have no tangible benefit to road safety.


Clearly the drivers complaint to the police has worked as they have altered their website and now list this as a speed camera and 0 red light cameras.

Like I said if the name of of the game was safety rather than revenue!

Driver has learnt his lesson and opted for speed awareness (brain washing) coffee and biscuits at the Holiday Inn, for the princely sum of £105 more than the FNP! Again other forces do it for £50-60 but avon and somerset need to cover their inaccurate website operating costs!

This is delivered by a registrar who knows nothing about road safety or driving, but if you need a death or marriage cert she is your girl.

Thank you, good night much love.

The bits in bold above

1. It's "could have been", or if you prefer to abbreviate "could've been"

2. You're claiming that a SAC in Avon and Somerset costs £205. Like hell it does

3. No it's not delivered by a registrar

You really do portray yourself poorly on here.

[surveyor_101]

1. Ok thanks!

2. No it costs £105 which is more £5 more than the FPN. My point was they charge more for education than about any other force!

3. Yes the one I attended a few years back was, I think she didn't even drive! Lady on my course had been married by her and she said outside of the room she/us were never to mention the course and her role ever again, its all confidential.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 10th November 13:11

[speedking31]

_dobbo_ said:

surveyor_101 said:

Driver did have his foot down he was in a 40 moment before, as for the comment of foot traffic. Its 4 lanes and has many crossing people don't tend to brave it without using the crossings.

Oh well in that case it's fine to be booting it accelerating into a 30 zone at nearly 40 miles an hour, because "people don't tend to brave it". The guy shouldn't be getting a speeding ticket he should be getting a medal.

It's no worse than some other road safety initiatives like growing foliage to obscure your view as you enter a roundabout. Having the odd person speeding along deters people from stepping into the road without looking properly, thus improving road safety.

[Gavia]

surveyor_101 said:

1. Ok thanks!

2. No it costs £105 which is more £5 more than the FPN. My point was they charge more for education than about any other force!

3. Yes the one I attended a few years back was, I think she didn't even drive! Lady on my course had been married by her and she said outside of the room she/us were never to mention the course and her role ever again, its all confidential.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 10th November 13:11

2. Then punctuation is your friend. Type it as "£105, more than the cost of the FPN", rather than "£105 more than the cost of the FPN". The comma makes all the difference, it's the difference between helping your Uncle, Jack, off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

3. Still don't believe it. Those running the course do bang on about privacy and confidentiality, but I seriously doubt that someone who can't drive would be employed to run a course.

[TooMany2cvs]

Gavia said:

Those running the course do bang on about privacy and confidentiality, but I seriously doubt that someone who can't drive would be employed to run a course.

If the plural of anecdote is data, then the course I did was delivered by two advanced driving instructors. It was in a different area, sure, but the company running it was the same as in Avon & Somerset, TTC.

[tapereel]

TooMany2cvs said:

Gavia said:

Those running the course do bang on about privacy and confidentiality, but I seriously doubt that someone who can't drive would be employed to run a course.

If the plural of anecdote is data, then the course I did was delivered by two advanced driving instructors. It was in a different area, sure, but the company running it was the same as in Avon & Somerset, TTC.

All instructors on the SAC must be ADI qualified. So unless it is possible to be an ADI without being able to drive then the lady instructing would have been able to drive. Whether she still drove regularly herself is not confirmed by that but I'm certain she would have known enough as an ADI to be able to instruct those who are confused or deliberately defy speed limits into a better understanding of them.