Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans
Discussion
Clivey said:
Nigel_O said:
So - I'm in the pub, and I see someone who I believe is over the limit, with car keys in their hand, making for the door.
I approach said person and tell then that their actions would be inadvisable, and that they should leave their keys with the landlord and get a lift home.
Am I then perverting the course of justice, in the same way that warning an oncoming driver of a "safety camera van"? I would certainly be preventing any chance of him being detected. Even if my hypothetical drink driver was already in his car and on the road, my intervention would be in order to prevent a crime being committed (or continuing to be committed), NOT just for the sake of saving him from prosecution.
Surely, by warning a driver of their speed, I'm preventing a "crime" rather than aiming to spoil Plod's party
In fact, isn't the presence of a camera warning sign doing exactly the same as warning an oncoming driver? perhaps all the councils should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice by warning drivers of a camera van.....
I have no issue with cameras in appropriate places - what really peeves me is the denial that the core purpose is revenue generation - the hard fact is that warning oncoming drivers of a van is depriving the treasury of £60 - that's why it is "illegal"
rant over...
I approach said person and tell then that their actions would be inadvisable, and that they should leave their keys with the landlord and get a lift home.
Am I then perverting the course of justice, in the same way that warning an oncoming driver of a "safety camera van"? I would certainly be preventing any chance of him being detected. Even if my hypothetical drink driver was already in his car and on the road, my intervention would be in order to prevent a crime being committed (or continuing to be committed), NOT just for the sake of saving him from prosecution.
Surely, by warning a driver of their speed, I'm preventing a "crime" rather than aiming to spoil Plod's party
In fact, isn't the presence of a camera warning sign doing exactly the same as warning an oncoming driver? perhaps all the councils should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice by warning drivers of a camera van.....
I have no issue with cameras in appropriate places - what really peeves me is the denial that the core purpose is revenue generation - the hard fact is that warning oncoming drivers of a van is depriving the treasury of £60 - that's why it is "illegal"
rant over...
In mitigation, I was at work when I posted, so I was desperate for something interesting to think about - won't happen again m'lud...
supermono said:
defblade said:
As I am regularly overtaken in 30 limits because I am daring to stick to 30, I've given up flashing for speed traps in 30s. Let the idiots take their lumps.
To be honest if you're regularly being overtaken I suspect you're doing 25mph with an overly optimistic speedo. Either that or you're a member of the speed limit appreciation club and jam on brakes to 29.9 exactly at the sign and won't accelerate until exactly the NSL sign. If you start showing a little judgement instead of programmed behaviour (IMO the definition of idiotic) you'll find you're less irritating to others and you'll stop being safely overtaken in 30s.g3org3y said:
I generally stick to 30 zones especially in areas I am unfamiliar with.
I have never been overtaken in a 30 zone, sticking to the limit or otherwise.
Where is this area of regular 30 zone overtakers?
Are you actually doing 30 or 25?
I tend to have 32 or 33 showing on my speedo(s). The sat nav says that's 30. There are a couple of stretches where it regularly happens even when I'm in my car (only for me to catch back up on the following bends... Also, there was a fatal single car accident I saw the other week along one of them, which suggests the 30 limit might not be quite so silly as many seem to think. Heigh ho.); otherwise it seems to be the idea of a narrow motorbike is too much to sit behind when it could so easily be overtaken.I have never been overtaken in a 30 zone, sticking to the limit or otherwise.
Where is this area of regular 30 zone overtakers?
Are you actually doing 30 or 25?
If my speedo is out of whack, it's similarly out of whack on my 318, my K1200R Sport and my Shiver GT. And my sat nav.
Actually, I'm currently looking at a car that has a calibrated speedo (so I'm guessing ex-plod); if I end up buying that, I'll get back to you and let you know how it goes.
In the meantime, I'm usually the one doing the overtaking in NSLs, but 30s need a bit of respect IMO, if only for the good of your licence.
There will of course be some idiots that choose to drive at inappropriate speeds (and I'm thinking about the type to do 40+ through a residential area) - whether legal or not - and overtake you in the process. IMO that's totally different from doing 80 on a quiet, well-sighted A-road and should be treated as such.
The problem with cameras and the current approach is that the enforcement is then of the heavy-handed "the law is the law" approach; like getting done for assault because you said "Boo!" to someone on Halloween or being sued because you used your daughter's laptop and "Student" copy of Word to write a document.
The problem with cameras and the current approach is that the enforcement is then of the heavy-handed "the law is the law" approach; like getting done for assault because you said "Boo!" to someone on Halloween or being sued because you used your daughter's laptop and "Student" copy of Word to write a document.
defblade said:
g3org3y said:
I generally stick to 30 zones especially in areas I am unfamiliar with.
I have never been overtaken in a 30 zone, sticking to the limit or otherwise.
Where is this area of regular 30 zone overtakers?
Are you actually doing 30 or 25?
I tend to have 32 or 33 showing on my speedo(s). The sat nav says that's 30. There are a couple of stretches where it regularly happens even when I'm in my car (only for me to catch back up on the following bends... Also, there was a fatal single car accident I saw the other week along one of them, which suggests the 30 limit might not be quite so silly as many seem to think. Heigh ho.); otherwise it seems to be the idea of a narrow motorbike is too much to sit behind when it could so easily be overtaken.I have never been overtaken in a 30 zone, sticking to the limit or otherwise.
Where is this area of regular 30 zone overtakers?
Are you actually doing 30 or 25?
If my speedo is out of whack, it's similarly out of whack on my 318, my K1200R Sport and my Shiver GT. And my sat nav.
Actually, I'm currently looking at a car that has a calibrated speedo (so I'm guessing ex-plod); if I end up buying that, I'll get back to you and let you know how it goes.
In the meantime, I'm usually the one doing the overtaking in NSLs, but 30s need a bit of respect IMO, if only for the good of your licence.
Agreed.It's just that you mentioned overtaken 'regularly' so I was interested in terms of the road/location as IME I've probably only seen overtakes in 30 zones a handful of times (and almost every one had been unnecessary/bordering on dangerous).
In the olden days when intelligent folks decided speed limits the default was NSL but sometimes a 30 was required because of good safety reasons. Those were the days when 30s were sacred and we tended to respect them in the main.
Now we have anti-car and anti-progress hand wringers in planning who's main intention is to hold up traffic and make journeys as miserable as possible. They extend 30s out of town, they have a mad assortment of 40s and 50s too.
So now the strategy is to largely ignore the limits and drive to the conditions but watch out for the obvious spots where thieving camara business operators are catching you, with the help of decent folks tipping you off.
Driving about in Norfolk and Suffolk there are large numbers of drivers making an obvious point of showing how very clever they are by driving exactly at the speed limit. They'll brake exactly at the limit and are delighted with the queue behind them. Sometimes it's safest to get past them during those out of town extensions of the 30 limits so that's what I'll do.
I think if anyone feels there's a general problem with "dangerous" drivers overtaking them it's pretty likely you're driving in a fashion that holds them up unnecessarily and is annoying. Generally people don't want to and indeed don't have accidents.
Now we have anti-car and anti-progress hand wringers in planning who's main intention is to hold up traffic and make journeys as miserable as possible. They extend 30s out of town, they have a mad assortment of 40s and 50s too.
So now the strategy is to largely ignore the limits and drive to the conditions but watch out for the obvious spots where thieving camara business operators are catching you, with the help of decent folks tipping you off.
Driving about in Norfolk and Suffolk there are large numbers of drivers making an obvious point of showing how very clever they are by driving exactly at the speed limit. They'll brake exactly at the limit and are delighted with the queue behind them. Sometimes it's safest to get past them during those out of town extensions of the 30 limits so that's what I'll do.
I think if anyone feels there's a general problem with "dangerous" drivers overtaking them it's pretty likely you're driving in a fashion that holds them up unnecessarily and is annoying. Generally people don't want to and indeed don't have accidents.
In the olden days when intelligent folks decided speed limits the default was NSL but sometimes a 30 was required because of good safety reasons. Those were the days when 30s were sacred and we tended to respect them in the main.
Now we have anti-car and anti-progress hand wringers in planning who's main intention is to hold up traffic and make journeys as miserable as possible. They extend 30s out of town, they have a mad assortment of 40s and 50s too.
So now the strategy is to largely ignore the limits and drive to the conditions but watch out for the obvious spots where thieving camara business operators are catching you, with the help of decent folks tipping you off.
Driving about in Norfolk and Suffolk there are large numbers of drivers making an obvious point of showing how very clever they are by driving exactly at the speed limit. They'll brake exactly at the limit and are delighted with the queue behind them. Sometimes it's safest to get past them during those out of town extensions of the 30 limits so that's what I'll do.
I think if anyone feels there's a general problem with "dangerous" drivers overtaking them it's pretty likely you're driving in a fashion that holds them up unnecessarily and is annoying. Generally people don't want to and indeed don't have accidents.
Now we have anti-car and anti-progress hand wringers in planning who's main intention is to hold up traffic and make journeys as miserable as possible. They extend 30s out of town, they have a mad assortment of 40s and 50s too.
So now the strategy is to largely ignore the limits and drive to the conditions but watch out for the obvious spots where thieving camara business operators are catching you, with the help of decent folks tipping you off.
Driving about in Norfolk and Suffolk there are large numbers of drivers making an obvious point of showing how very clever they are by driving exactly at the speed limit. They'll brake exactly at the limit and are delighted with the queue behind them. Sometimes it's safest to get past them during those out of town extensions of the 30 limits so that's what I'll do.
I think if anyone feels there's a general problem with "dangerous" drivers overtaking them it's pretty likely you're driving in a fashion that holds them up unnecessarily and is annoying. Generally people don't want to and indeed don't have accidents.
SK425 said:
R0G said:
Why help an illegal driver - its their fault if they are either incapable or deliberately breaking the limit
Why not help them? A bit of community spirit - quite life-affirming really.supermono said:
In the olden days when intelligent folks decided speed limits the default was NSL but sometimes a 30 was required because of good safety reasons. Those were the days when 30s were sacred and we tended to respect them in the main.
Ah yes, the olden days...now where did I leave my rose tinted glasses...
supermono said:
I think if anyone feels there's a general problem with "dangerous" drivers overtaking them it's pretty likely you're driving in a fashion that holds them up unnecessarily and is annoying. Generally people don't want to and indeed don't have accidents.
This sounds very much like a "What I reckon" statement i.e. a view based entirely on your exisiting preconceptions and zero evidence.supermono said:
Driving about in Norfolk and Suffolk there are large numbers of drivers making an obvious point of showing how very clever they are by driving exactly at the speed limit. They'll brake exactly at the limit and are delighted with the queue behind them. Sometimes it's safest to get past them during those out of town extensions of the 30 limits so that's what I'll do.
Seriously?I brake to the limit in a 30, because I very much need my licence and that is where the vans tend to operate.
I think assuming that you know what the guy in front is thinking is a hiding to nothing and just serves to wind yourself up.
Frankly most morons on the road today won't look in their rear-view mirror while in single lane traffic.
He probably has no idea about any queue behind him.
Nigel_O said:
So - I'm in the pub, and I see someone who I believe is over the limit, with car keys in their hand, making for the door.
I approach said person and tell then that their actions would be inadvisable, and that they should leave their keys with the landlord and get a lift home.
Am I then perverting the course of justice, in the same way that warning an oncoming driver of a "safety camera van"? I would certainly be preventing any chance of him being detected. Even if my hypothetical drink driver was already in his car and on the road, my intervention would be in order to prevent a crime being committed (or continuing to be committed), NOT just for the sake of saving him from prosecution.
Surely, by warning a driver of their speed, I'm preventing a "crime" rather than aiming to spoil Plod's party
In fact, isn't the presence of a camera warning sign doing exactly the same as warning an oncoming driver? perhaps all the councils should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice by warning drivers of a camera van.....
I have no issue with cameras in appropriate places - what really peeves me is the denial that the core purpose is revenue generation - the hard fact is that warning oncoming drivers of a van is depriving the treasury of £60 - that's why it is "illegal"
rant over...
I don't think your situatuion with the drink driver is analogous.I approach said person and tell then that their actions would be inadvisable, and that they should leave their keys with the landlord and get a lift home.
Am I then perverting the course of justice, in the same way that warning an oncoming driver of a "safety camera van"? I would certainly be preventing any chance of him being detected. Even if my hypothetical drink driver was already in his car and on the road, my intervention would be in order to prevent a crime being committed (or continuing to be committed), NOT just for the sake of saving him from prosecution.
Surely, by warning a driver of their speed, I'm preventing a "crime" rather than aiming to spoil Plod's party
In fact, isn't the presence of a camera warning sign doing exactly the same as warning an oncoming driver? perhaps all the councils should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice by warning drivers of a camera van.....
I have no issue with cameras in appropriate places - what really peeves me is the denial that the core purpose is revenue generation - the hard fact is that warning oncoming drivers of a van is depriving the treasury of £60 - that's why it is "illegal"
rant over...
What would be analogous is if you saw someone drink driving and advised them to stop because there was a Police officer further up the road, or we were talking about warning people not to speed before they got into their car.
If I saw someone get into their car who was drunk and drive away I would contact the Police.
oyster said:
If a cyclist was pedaling up a one way street to take advantage of a shortcut, and you knew there was a policeman at the top of the road, would you warn the cyclist in the same way?
Ha! Pull the other one.You run them down and the police give you a medal.
(In fairness, I really hate salmon.)
g3org3y said:
Agreed.It's just that you mentioned overtaken 'regularly' so I was interested in terms of the road/location as IME I've probably only seen overtakes in 30 zones a handful of times (and almost every one had been unnecessary/bordering on dangerous).
http://goo.gl/maps/k05Ak
Coming the other way is no better - 2 busy stable entrances behind the camera here, a badly sighted triangle junction just around the corner (leading onto the double whites) and the camera's a bit before the point (although wrong side of the road) I think it must have started to go wrong for the lady who died the other day. But there's no way you can roll and destroy yourself and a Touran on that road at 30mph.
http://goo.gl/maps/fQyYu
But it happens on all sorts of roads at all sorts of times when I'm on the motorbike. Not so much in the car.
@supermono: I appreciate the need/best opportunity to overtake slow folks can be just before the NSL.
We're just going to have to differ on the rest; please for the sake of your blood pressure realise that the person at the front may be thinking about why they're doing the speed they're doing, not just following a number-onna-stick blindly... they might be just like you, only with 9 points already
ETA: back on topic more, my point is that if people want to exceed 30, and their obs and local knowledge is poor enough that they then end up with 3 points - tough. I'm not helping them ease the pain of their own choice.
Edited by defblade on Wednesday 12th November 14:59
Just resurrecting this old chestnut...
Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that warning other drivers approaching a speed trap was an offence - in as much as a court would put the onus on yourself to prove that you weren't obstructing an OFFICER/CONSTABLE in the course of his/her duty.
But it all went a bit quiet when it was mentioned that the 'safety' camera vans would not likely have a police officer in them. Instead they would usually be manned by a 'civilian'.
What's the score on this?
Legal or not legal? - dependent on whether 'safety' van has police officers in them or not?
Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that warning other drivers approaching a speed trap was an offence - in as much as a court would put the onus on yourself to prove that you weren't obstructing an OFFICER/CONSTABLE in the course of his/her duty.
But it all went a bit quiet when it was mentioned that the 'safety' camera vans would not likely have a police officer in them. Instead they would usually be manned by a 'civilian'.
What's the score on this?
Legal or not legal? - dependent on whether 'safety' van has police officers in them or not?
mybrainhurts said:
It's not an offence if you believe the driver you're warning is not exceeding the speed limit.
All in all, it's a disgraceful waste of police time and resources.
But it was wrote earlier in the thread that the courts would see it otherwise, in that it would be obstruction of an officer in his duty..... BUT, are they police officers operating the vans?..... and if not, it is still an offence?All in all, it's a disgraceful waste of police time and resources.
delboy735 said:
Question.
If speed cameras are really about road safety, and not cash cows, then why is it an offence to flash at approaching drivers as a warning of Scamera vans ??
Shall we assume for a few moments that this is a serious question and you would like a serious answer?If speed cameras are really about road safety, and not cash cows, then why is it an offence to flash at approaching drivers as a warning of Scamera vans ??
As a parallel, supposing you were approaching a bank and saw a number of policemen, armed to the teeth, in hiding. A little nearer to the bank you saw what were obviously robbers about to rob said bank, if you were to tell those potential robbers that policemen were waiting for them, you would have stopped a crime being committed.
Would you think it unreasonable if the police charged you with an offence?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff