Cynical mobile scamera
Discussion
The only thing that really bugs me about this sort of thing is where there is a big step between the from/too limits - NSL dual carriageway to horrid "urban" 40mph dual carriageway being a good example. It strikes me as more dangerous to have to get down to 40 in advance of the change than to gradually slow down, even if that does mean being over the 40 for a while as you decelerate. In an ideal World, everyone would of course be doing the same thing, but in reality it means some people stamping on the brakes whilst other are still moving considerably quicker. Add in a camera and I think you are making the situation more dangerous frankly. Better to have a "fuzzy" boundary (if only from enforcement point of view) to allow graduated changes than enforce to the letter and encourage panic braking and risk rear end shunts. That doesn't top up the pension, sadly.
gone said:
S2art, I think you are on rocky ground here. I doubt very much that you are better informed than Gone of his duty (or compliance if you prefer). Gone and the other BiBs are mandated to apply the law, not the form of law that you personally would prefer.
Cheers.
Police use discretion all the time. Some people do not particularly like how I use it when they are punished. Some are very grateful in the way I use discretion FPT instead of court or even on the very minimal occasion, a warning rather than a penalty
Police (as do all public authorities) have a duty of care to the public. That is set out within the doctrine of HR. That would include making sure that rules within society are being adhered to. Sadly for many, that includes motoring law
Gone, you guys need to take some of these people out with you for just a few hours.
Then they might get some idea of the law in action and your job. Could improve their attitude towards you and the advise you offer on this forum
There's a dual carriageway near Bridgwater in Somerset that untill recently was NSL all the way to the roundabout at the end of the one mile straight.
Now, well about two years ago, the last 300 metres or so have been reduced to 40mph.
From observation I am quite sure 99% of car drivers are doing 50+ as they pass the tin plate 40 sign.
A scam van parked inconspicuosly ahead would be guaranteed a field day in takings, but alas there have been no accidents there as far I know and I guess that's why they haven't leeched that spot.. yet.
The police obviously know that that particular speed limit is ridiculous and ignored by all. Every time they use their private cars they will have observed that fact the same as I did.
My dilemma is, should I inform the local camera partnership of this constant law breaking and request a community concern site at this spot?
Oh my, what to do?
The questions I'm asking myself are:
Is the law being broken here?
As Gone said, shouldn't this law be obbeyed by motorists, regardless of their own experienced but insignificant judgement?
Am I in danger of having an accident here if the safety camera partnership is not called in?
How many lives might they save here by catching these law breakers on camera?
Will there be a positive or negative effect in the law breakers attitudes towards the police, or perhaps this is irrelevant?
As they would be enforcing a law for the laws sake only and financial gain, shouldn't it have something to do with safety too?
Could the 40 tin plates be removed and the road returned to NSL all the way?
How much cash could be raised to support the camera partnerships pension fund?
Hmmm, I think I'll wait a little longer before I call the Partnership.
Thinking about it, I saw two contrasting sides of the police/law last week. One side in London when they caught two of the four bombers, excellent work I was proud of them.
The other side when I saw an officer in a camera van filming drivers like the poster of this thread, with the intent of punishing them for petty excess speed whilst driving safely. I was ashamed to see it.
Makes me think they must have nothing usefull to do.
It's an awfull thing to say, but if terrorism became rife nationwide, the police would have their work cut out. They would no longer be sitting in vans filming motorists.
Now, well about two years ago, the last 300 metres or so have been reduced to 40mph.
From observation I am quite sure 99% of car drivers are doing 50+ as they pass the tin plate 40 sign.
A scam van parked inconspicuosly ahead would be guaranteed a field day in takings, but alas there have been no accidents there as far I know and I guess that's why they haven't leeched that spot.. yet.
The police obviously know that that particular speed limit is ridiculous and ignored by all. Every time they use their private cars they will have observed that fact the same as I did.
My dilemma is, should I inform the local camera partnership of this constant law breaking and request a community concern site at this spot?
Oh my, what to do?
The questions I'm asking myself are:
Is the law being broken here?
As Gone said, shouldn't this law be obbeyed by motorists, regardless of their own experienced but insignificant judgement?
Am I in danger of having an accident here if the safety camera partnership is not called in?
How many lives might they save here by catching these law breakers on camera?
Will there be a positive or negative effect in the law breakers attitudes towards the police, or perhaps this is irrelevant?
As they would be enforcing a law for the laws sake only and financial gain, shouldn't it have something to do with safety too?
Could the 40 tin plates be removed and the road returned to NSL all the way?
How much cash could be raised to support the camera partnerships pension fund?
Hmmm, I think I'll wait a little longer before I call the Partnership.
Thinking about it, I saw two contrasting sides of the police/law last week. One side in London when they caught two of the four bombers, excellent work I was proud of them.
The other side when I saw an officer in a camera van filming drivers like the poster of this thread, with the intent of punishing them for petty excess speed whilst driving safely. I was ashamed to see it.
Makes me think they must have nothing usefull to do.
It's an awfull thing to say, but if terrorism became rife nationwide, the police would have their work cut out. They would no longer be sitting in vans filming motorists.
Regardless of the interpretation and application of the law, care must be taken by the Police and all of the authorities not to alienate the population.
Or put it another way, how many people these days give the Police a hard time when they request information as a result of the local Speed camera partnership's policy?
Any competant driver who uses the roads regularly knows a badly set speed limit or a camera van that is positioned to take advantage of a change in the limit. I know how I feel when I see such things and I have a clean license!
Edit for badly grammar
>> Edited by timtonal on Tuesday 2nd August 08:06
Or put it another way, how many people these days give the Police a hard time when they request information as a result of the local Speed camera partnership's policy?
Any competant driver who uses the roads regularly knows a badly set speed limit or a camera van that is positioned to take advantage of a change in the limit. I know how I feel when I see such things and I have a clean license!
Edit for badly grammar
>> Edited by timtonal on Tuesday 2nd August 08:06
thepilsbury said:
Yowsa - what a response! To summarise then, he should just bend over and be shafted - if you can't do the time then don't do the crime eh?. Has anyone any views on the mobile camera being covered by the warnings for the fixed camera or is this just a minor technicality that wouldn't get him off the charge anyway?
Its not even a minor technicality there is no requirement to sign.
hustlebabe said:
Gone, you guys need to take some of these people out with you for just a few hours.
Then they might get some idea of the law in action and your job. Could improve their attitude towards you and the advise you offer on this forum
Strange you shuld say that. I do, quite often. Not in an official capacity but I give advanced road training and many from PH have used me. They are aware of my opinions and how they should proceed.
I have many feedback letters from those who have had my input. I haven't had a bad one yet. I am concerned about saving the lives of those in the driving environment and keeping licences clean. It can be done and still have great fun (I am a poet and didn't know it
).deeps said:
From observation I am quite sure 99% of car drivers are doing 50+ as they pass the tin plate 40 sign.
Its the same for vitually every limit not just this one!
deeps said:
Is the law being broken here?
As Gone said, shouldn't this law be obbeyed by motorists, regardless of their own experienced but insignificant judgement?
The answer is an unequivical YES! to both the above.
deeps said:
Am I in danger of having an accident here if the safety camera partnership is not called in?
Not necessarily any more than you are 100 meters before or 100 meters after the plate. You are in danger of collecting at least 3 points and losing at least £60. It is really that simple.
deeps said:
How many lives might they save here by catching these law breakers on camera?
deeps said:
Will there be a positive or negative effect in the law breakers attitudes towards the police, or perhaps this is irrelevant?
:bigsigh: Once again. Policing is not a popularity contest.There are many who congratulate the police on the work they do to reduce vehicle speeds especially from residents!
If you stick to the rules, you will not be bothered by the attentions of the police especially where you are more likley to come to attention!
deeps said:
As they would be enforcing a law for the laws sake only and financial gain, shouldn't it have something to do with safety too?
That depends on the person who deliberately decides or carelessly ignores the rules! It has everything to do with safety. That is why the limit is reduced so that velocity is less in the evnt of a problem and there is more time in which to react for everyone!
deeps said:
Could the 40 tin plates be removed and the road returned to NSL all the way?
How much cash could be raised to support the camera partnerships pension fund?
Capping off has nothing to do with pension funds! deeps said:
Makes me think they must have nothing usefull to do.
It's an awfull thing to say, but if terrorism became rife nationwide, the police would have their work cut out. They would no longer be sitting in vans filming motorists.
>> Edited by gone on Tuesday 2nd August 10:51
Gone said:
Not necessarily any more than you are 100 meters before or 100 meters after the plate. You are in danger of collecting at least 3 points and losing at least £60. It is really that simple.
Odd then that these limit changes are put so far away from the hazard so as to give people time to slow down .......
autismuk said:
Not necessarily any more than you are 100 meters before or 100 meters after the plate. You are in danger of collecting at least 3 points and losing at least £60. It is really that simple.
Odd then that these limit changes are put so far away from the hazard so as to give people time to slow down .......
On the contrary! Not odd at all. Careful planning by engineers and local authorities who know that most drivers are incapable of making the necessary judgemets to be travelling at the speed on the plate when they get there. That being the case, moving them back in to the previous NSL has the required result (hopefully) in a subtantially greater proportion than if they were close to the original area of actual or potential danger!
Most limits are large enough to see form a reasonable distance away to allow for adjustments to be made. I accept that in summer months, limits are often disguised by unhewn vegetation in rurla areas. That being the case, a strategically obtained photo of the problem should make for a reasonable defence to an allegation about speeding past the signs.
The plate marks the boundary of the difference in permitted speed. There is no grey area. It is just the same in opinion and attitude about VEL. Many think there is a 14 day period of grace to obtain the vel. There is not. The day it expires is the day the offence starts regardless of the reasons for not purchasing it within the next 14 days! You have the opportunity to buy your VEL some 2 weeks before the expiry date when DVLA send the reminder
.gone said:
Careful planning by engineers and local authorities who know that most drivers are incapable of making the necessary judgemets to be travelling at the speed on the plate when they get there.
The plate marks the boundary of the difference in permitted speed. There is no grey area.
So lets see...
- the plate has been put hundreds of yards away from the hazard requiring the lower limit
- the law (speed limit) is there as a reminder to the driver to ensure that their duty-of-care to other road users is maintained
- yet breaking the law only 10 yards after the plate results in prosecution.
Sorry gone, but that's a really f'd up piece of reasoning...the law is being enforced "because it's the law", not because the associated duty-of-care has been broken. Which, I always thought, was where an officers "judgement" and "discretion" came into play.
If someone was going too fast when they crossed the plate, but 50yds later was at the lower limit, surely that is a reasonable circumstance to exercise discretion and just have a quiet word with them, not send them an NIP through the post. if they failed to moderate their speed at all, THEN nail their arse!!!
havoc said:
- yet breaking the law only 10 yards after the plate results in prosecution.
Are drivers of vehicles reasonable intelligent beings?
Do they understand the concept of what is allowed and what is not allowed?
Are they capable of comprehending the signs that they have to learn to hold a permit to drive?
Do they understand that enforcement is used to reinforce the message that drivers should adhere to the limits?
Do people have opinions that are at odds with the law because the law does not suit them?
It cannot be more simple. If your speedometer is registering a higher number than that circled by a red ring on a plate, then you are subject of a penalty. What is so difficult to comprehend about getting it right and not being subject of that penalty?
havoc said:
Sorry gone, but that's a really f'd up piece of reasoning...the law is being enforced "because it's the law",
That is the job of the police. It is in the definition of a police constable.
'A citizen, locally appointed but having authority under the Crown for the protection of life and property, the maintenance of order and the prosecution of offenders against the peace.'
havoc said:
not because the associated duty-of-care has been broken. Which, I always thought, was where an officers "judgement" and "discretion" came into play.
Public authorities have a duty of care to citizens. They duty of care on the police it ensure that the law is enforced. The courts are the authority that have the discretion to interpret the duty of care and how the police have administered procedures within the law.
havoc said:
If someone was going too fast when they crossed the plate, but 50yds later was at the lower limit, surely that is a reasonable circumstance to exercise discretion and just have a quiet word with them, not send them an NIP through the post. if they failed to moderate their speed at all, THEN nail their arse!!!
Quite
meldrewlives said:
Noticed in Scotland recently that they put warnings 300, 200 and 100 yds ahead of limit signs. Psychologically it seems to work.
They do it in lots of places.
Wales has many of them.
The small sign indicating the limit is usually on an virtical oblong white plate with the countdown marker sequantially indicated the closer to the restriction you get.
The problem with these signs is that they are ususally a small speed limit sign in a red circle which means srtictly by the letter of the law, the limit starts at the 3 hundred meter marker. The ring on the count down sign around the indicated speed should be black to avoid confusion about where the limit actually starts.
The order covering the limit will only start from the proper sign and not the 300 meters prior to it.
gone said:
Gone said:
Not necessarily any more than you are 100 meters before or 100 meters after the plate. You are in danger of collecting at least 3 points and losing at least £60. It is really that simple.
Odd then that these limit changes are put so far away from the hazard so as to give people time to slow down .......
On the contrary! Not odd at all. Careful planning by engineers and local authorities who know that most drivers are incapable of making the necessary judgemets to be travelling at the speed on the plate when they get there. That being the case, moving them back in to the previous NSL has the required result (hopefully) in a subtantially greater proportion than if they were close to the original area of actual or potential danger!
Most limits are large enough to see form a reasonable distance away to allow for adjustments to be made. I accept that in summer months, limits are often disguised by unhewn vegetation in rurla areas. That being the case, a strategically obtained photo of the problem should make for a reasonable defence to an allegation about speeding past the signs.
The plate marks the boundary of the difference in permitted speed. There is no grey area. It is just the same in opinion and attitude about VEL. Many think there is a 14 day period of grace to obtain the vel. There is not. The day it expires is the day the offence starts regardless of the reasons for not purchasing it within the next 14 days! You have the opportunity to buy your VEL some 2 weeks before the expiry date when DVLA send the reminder
So if it is about safety, why not speed trap at the point where the hazard is ?
Or is it about money and statistics not safety ?
Not really, no.
It would be if the Scamerati behaved reasonably, and allowed for that deacceleration, but they don't.
The Scams and the BiB (sadly) hide here, so the safety aspect (in terms of slowing people down) is virtually nil.
All they do is catch people going "too fast" (i.e. above the limit).
Of course, they would be warned for next time. Also, of course, if they hid where the hazard was, they'd focus on the people speeding at the hazard.
It would be if the Scamerati behaved reasonably, and allowed for that deacceleration, but they don't.
The Scams and the BiB (sadly) hide here, so the safety aspect (in terms of slowing people down) is virtually nil.
All they do is catch people going "too fast" (i.e. above the limit).
Of course, they would be warned for next time. Also, of course, if they hid where the hazard was, they'd focus on the people speeding at the hazard.
gone said:
deeps said:
Am I in danger of having an accident here if the safety camera partnership is not called in?
Not necessarily any more than you are 100 meters before or 100 meters after the plate. You are in danger of collecting at least 3 points and losing at least £60. It is really that simple.
I appreciate your reply but it is very predictable, because of your job you always state the law as it is and that's fair enough, but it would be nice to hear the human side of Gone from time to time
It's nice to see you agree that it's all about raking in the £60 which in you opinion is acceptable. I would much rather see a method of enforcement whereby safe driving wasn't punished, but ofcourse the takings would be well down and the system would no longer be self financing.
gone said:
deeps said:
How many lives might they save here by catching these law breakers on camera?
It was a serious question, I think the answer is zero.
gone said:
deeps said:
Will there be a positive or negative effect in the law breakers attitudes towards the police, or perhaps this is irrelevant?
:bigsigh: Once again. Policing is not a popularity contest.There are many who congratulate the police on the work they do to reduce vehicle speeds especially from residents!
If you stick to the rules, you will not be bothered by the attentions of the police especially where you are more likley to come to attention!
There are no residents on this stretch of DC.
Nobody (bar one) sticks to pointless draconian speed limit rules as you know. Attention for breaking the rules is gained for all the wrong reasons and has nothing to do with how safe you're driving, that is fundamentally wrong.
gone said:
deeps said:
As they would be enforcing a law for the laws sake only and financial gain, shouldn't it have something to do with safety too?
That depends on the person who deliberately decides or carelessly ignores the rules! It has everything to do with safety. That is why the limit is reduced so that velocity is less in the evnt of a problem and there is more time in which to react for everyone!
I would agree if the speed limit had been correctly reduced, the 85th percentile rule was once again disregarded here.
gone said:
deeps said:
Makes me think they must have nothing usefull to do.
It's an awfull thing to say, but if terrorism became rife nationwide, the police would have their work cut out. They would no longer be sitting in vans filming motorists.
I am serious! If there were a national dissaster of some kind, say unexpected large earth quakes, I'm sure resources would no longer be wasted on such petty activity as hiding behind bushes with speed guns. They would have something better to do.
[/quote]
>> Edited by deeps on Tuesday 2nd August 19:31 bloody quote brackets
>> Edited by deeps on Tuesday 2nd August 19:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff