Cynical mobile scamera
Discussion
A friend of mine recently received a NIP for doing 36 in a 30 zone. He was caught by a mobile unit that he didn't see and nor did his passenger. The mobile unit was poistioned just after the 40 zone changes to the 30 so obviously he was reducing speed to comply with the 30 just a little too late. There is also a fixed camera further along but on the oncoming lane so therefore there are fixed camera warning signs in the area. There appeared to be no mobile camera warning signs put up. Is it possible that this is illegal or do the fixed signs 'cover' any mobile operations along the same stretch of road (albeit in a different direction)?
His wife has received the NIP (as registered owner) and sent it off naming him as driver. He has now received the NIP in which he has to admit driving or say it was someone else. The thing about this is that he has a clean license and is always extremely careful about keeping within 40 and 30 limits. He feels that this is a cynical attempt to get motorists who are attempting to keep within the speed limits but maybe have not so good reaction times. He would like to contend but feels that it is entirely possible he was doing 36 in a 30 and maybe should just take the fine and points. Would a magistrate look sympathetically at this if he went to court? (remembering that there were no mobile camera signs put up).
His wife has received the NIP (as registered owner) and sent it off naming him as driver. He has now received the NIP in which he has to admit driving or say it was someone else. The thing about this is that he has a clean license and is always extremely careful about keeping within 40 and 30 limits. He feels that this is a cynical attempt to get motorists who are attempting to keep within the speed limits but maybe have not so good reaction times. He would like to contend but feels that it is entirely possible he was doing 36 in a 30 and maybe should just take the fine and points. Would a magistrate look sympathetically at this if he went to court? (remembering that there were no mobile camera signs put up).
thepilsbury said:
A friend of mine recently received a NIP for doing 36 in a 30 zone. He was caught by a mobile unit that he didn't see and nor did his passenger. The mobile unit was poistioned just after the 40 zone changes to the 30 so obviously he was reducing speed to comply with the 30 just a little too late. There is also a fixed camera further along but on the oncoming lane so therefore there are fixed camera warning signs in the area. There appeared to be no mobile camera warning signs put up. Is it possible that this is illegal or do the fixed signs 'cover' any mobile operations along the same stretch of road (albeit in a different direction)?
His wife has received the NIP (as registered owner) and sent it off naming him as driver. He has now received the NIP in which he has to admit driving or say it was someone else. The thing about this is that he has a clean license and is always extremely careful about keeping within 40 and 30 limits. He feels that this is a cynical attempt to get motorists who are attempting to keep within the speed limits but maybe have not so good reaction times. He would like to contend but feels that it is entirely possible he was doing 36 in a 30 and maybe should just take the fine and points. Would a magistrate look sympathetically at this if he went to court? (remembering that there were no mobile camera signs put up).
Nope.
I was too caught at the weekend doing over 35 but less than 40.
I too am very careful about my speed in 30's. I was climbing a very steep bank and was travelling a little quicker than I normally would to make it easy for the car.
I expect my ticket very shortly.
The limit starts at the point where the tin plate is positioned at both sides of the road. It is not difficult to match the numbers on both the speedometer and the number on the plate before the driver gets to it!
The middle pedal usually does the trick or the left one on automatics. The reduction in limit is not a 'must achieve'. There is room to travel at slighty less than what is on the plate and then there will be no problem encountering measures to relieve cash from drivers accounts, many of which can be seen if the driver is looking properly anyway! Neither is there a period of grace after the plate to allow for bad judgement.
>> Edited by gone on Monday 1st August 11:08
The middle pedal usually does the trick or the left one on automatics. The reduction in limit is not a 'must achieve'. There is room to travel at slighty less than what is on the plate and then there will be no problem encountering measures to relieve cash from drivers accounts, many of which can be seen if the driver is looking properly anyway! Neither is there a period of grace after the plate to allow for bad judgement.
>> Edited by gone on Monday 1st August 11:08
Nasty, this could have happened to any of us. IMO just take it like a man (unless 3 more bonus points - 12 points for you).
Hidden Tallivans are the nastiest of nasty things, but they are legal and doing the job they are told to do whether we like it or not. Unless you can prove the van was parked illegally or similar then I wouldn't bother appealing.
Hidden Tallivans are the nastiest of nasty things, but they are legal and doing the job they are told to do whether we like it or not. Unless you can prove the van was parked illegally or similar then I wouldn't bother appealing.
Be warned! You have to bear in mind the sort of jobsworth that puts a mobile trap near a speed limit change.
Has little to do with road safety and a lot to do with catching people out.
I bear this in mind but I always seem to find the vehicle following me to be far to close when I slow to the limit before the signs. Still I stick my thumb up my bum and pretend that I'm safe, whistling a happy tune, etc....
Has little to do with road safety and a lot to do with catching people out.
I bear this in mind but I always seem to find the vehicle following me to be far to close when I slow to the limit before the signs. Still I stick my thumb up my bum and pretend that I'm safe, whistling a happy tune, etc....
In most parts they now place the speed limit changes far out from the 'danger area' they are protecting - allowing a buffer zone which one would think would be useful for slowing down in...
Oh no - it's a zone to lure you in to a false sense of security and take away your pocket money...
Oxfordshire is a fine example of this malpractice.
Oh no - it's a zone to lure you in to a false sense of security and take away your pocket money...
Oxfordshire is a fine example of this malpractice.
gone said:
nothing likely to endear him to anyone around here
So it's absolutely critical to road safety that the motorist adheres to the arbitrarily set limit at the exact point of the tin sign then is it?
Well, obviously it is since I was scammed a few years ago as I passed the first '40' sign on the A127 to Southend from the M25. I was slowing as I went past it and I knew that the reason it was there was because of a junction about half a mile further on. That's where I was flagged in by one of at least 6 coppers with 3 vehicles between them zapping everyone as they passed the sign and handing out tickets.
I think one car passed unimpeded whilst I was there and everyone else was flagged down and had to queue in the lay-by to wait for their little chat. Oh yes, and it was 7:00am on a Saturday. The copper even proudly showed me how many hundred metres away he'd done me from and, yes, it was at the point of the sign.
f
ing pathetic.gone said:
The limit starts at the point where the tin plate is positioned at both sides of the road. It is not difficult to match the numbers on both the speedometer and the number on the plate before the driver gets to it!
Of course it does...but is "safety" in any way impinged by a driver who is already braking when passing the sign on his/her way down to the new limit??? I'd contend that if their foot is already on the brake and slowing the car that's worth a few mph in unneeded "reaction time".
As a (not very realistic but it gets the point across) example, I'd rather step out in front of an average driver already on the brakes at ~35mph than a clueless numpty doing 29 who just might not see me and even when they do would take ages to react!!!
As far as the letter of the law goes, guilty as charged. But the spirit of the law?!? The law is there to ensure roads are safe...that is all. The limits are ARBITRARY things designed as a guide to what would normally be considered safe...yet currently everyone is making them an absolute...which in my opinion is complete b'll'cks and counter-productive...
...but we're not going there again, we could both point at 20 threads going over the same old ground!!!
DaveR said:
gone said:
nothing likely to endear him to anyone around here
So it's absolutely critical to road safety that the motorist adheres to the arbitrarily set limit at the exact point of the tin sign then is it?
It is is he/she wants to hold onto £60 or more and keep a licence without more spots!
DaveR said:
Well, obviously it is since I was scammed a few years ago as I passed the first '40' sign on the A127 to Southend from the M25. I was slowing as I went past it and I knew that the reason it was there was because of a junction about half a mile further on. That's where I was flagged in by one of at least 6 coppers with 3 vehicles between them zapping everyone as they passed the sign and handing out tickets.
You failed on the observation test
DaveR said:
I think one car passed unimpeded whilst I was there and everyone else was flagged down and had to queue in the lay-by to wait for their little chat.
His observation was good then
DaveR said:
Oh yes, and it was 7:00am on a Saturday. The copper even proudly showed me how many hundred metres away he'd done me from and, yes, it was at the point of the sign.
f
Are the regulations strangely different at 0700 on a Saturday?
You are quite right. It is pathetic that people cannot match the speed shown on the dial to the one on the plate before or as they get to it
>> Edited by gone on Monday 1st August 12:39
gone said:
[quote=DaveR]
D
Are the regulations strangely different at 0700 on a Saturday?
You are quite right. It is pathetic that people cannot match the speed shown on the dial to the one on the plate before or as they get to it
>> Edited by gone on Monday 1st August 12:39
And even more pathetic that the plod are unable to use common sense.
gone said:
As a (not very realistic but it gets the point across) example, I'd rather step out in front of an average driver already on the brakes at ~35mph than a clueless numpty doing 29 who just might not see me and even when they do would take ages to react!!!
Would you step out in front of a car?Hmmmmmm
havoc said:
As far as the letter of the law goes, guilty as charged. But the spirit of the law?!?
They are the same thing. The spirt of the law is that you should be travelling at or below the speed on the plate when you pass it!
havoc said:
...but we're not going there again, we could both point at 20 threads going over the same old ground!!!
You don't sayJust like many other threads!
The spirit of the law relates to a duty of care. Or dont you understand the term 'spirit of the law'?
gone said:
The spirit of the law relates to a duty of care. Or dont you understand the term 'spirit of the law'?
Perfectly!
Duty of care is to everyone on the road and in its vicinity to make sure that people are safe and drivers comply with the rules!
Wrong! Almost, but complying with rules was superfluous. One can comply completely with the rules and yet not display duty of care. You are conflating two different things.
s2art said:
Perfectly!
Duty of care is to everyone on the road and in its vicinity to make sure that people are safe and drivers comply with the rules!
Wrong! Almost, but complying with rules was superfluous. One can comply completely with the rules and yet not display duty of care. You are conflating two different things.
[/quote]
It was not superflous at all.
I agree that you can comply with the rules but not show a duty of care. That is the specific behaviour of an individual and more to the point an individual private motorist who has a duty of care to everyone else when driving. The duty of care bestowed on public authorities is to make sure that those who have a personal duty of care to others actually comply with it!
Duty of care is for the police service to protect the public by making those who should abide by rules comply with them. Thereby they are collectively complying with the duty of care bestowed on them in enforcing the rules.
>> Edited by gone on Monday 1st August 13:08
>> Edited by gone on Monday 1st August 13:08
thepilsbury said:
A friend of mine recently received a NIP for doing 36 in a 30 zone. He was caught by a mobile unit that he didn't see and nor did his passenger. The mobile unit was poistioned just after the 40 zone changes to the 30 so obviously he was reducing speed to comply with the 30 just a little too late. There is also a fixed camera further along but on the oncoming lane so therefore there are fixed camera warning signs in the area. There appeared to be no mobile camera warning signs put up. Is it possible that this is illegal or do the fixed signs 'cover' any mobile operations along the same stretch of road (albeit in a different direction)?
His wife has received the NIP (as registered owner) and sent it off naming him as driver. He has now received the NIP in which he has to admit driving or say it was someone else. The thing about this is that he has a clean license and is always extremely careful about keeping within 40 and 30 limits. He feels that this is a cynical attempt to get motorists who are attempting to keep within the speed limits but maybe have not so good reaction times. He would like to contend but feels that it is entirely possible he was doing 36 in a 30 and maybe should just take the fine and points. Would a magistrate look sympathetically at this if he went to court? (remembering that there were no mobile camera signs put up).
I'm glad people like this are being caught by the scam. Obviously I don't want anybody to be caught but it's this kind of person (I never speed, always stick to the limits, I'm a safe driver) who will have more chance of changing the system than people who frequent PH and are seen as speeders from the start.
Sorry he's got a fine, but suggest he complains to his MP and the police.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff