Scamera Van question
Discussion
I might have just been 'caught' doing 8.2 leptons (indicated) in a 7.0 lepton limit. Not sure if I will get a ticket or not.
The scamera van was on a downhill section (of course) and just round a bend so I braked as soon as I saw it. Do they usually focus on the immediate point of no return or give you some time to see them?
I'm hoping they go for the nearside lane rather then overtaking lane.
Also I thought there had to be camera signs running upto the van to make it legal, otherwise you can get off. Perhaps that is an urban legend, can anyone confirm one way or another.
The scamera van was on a downhill section (of course) and just round a bend so I braked as soon as I saw it. Do they usually focus on the immediate point of no return or give you some time to see them?
I'm hoping they go for the nearside lane rather then overtaking lane.
Also I thought there had to be camera signs running upto the van to make it legal, otherwise you can get off. Perhaps that is an urban legend, can anyone confirm one way or another.
Golaboots said:
Hopefully I'll get to go on the course if anything. 8 years ago when I last got done it was a straight 3 points with no warning.
If I was in charge I would get rid of speed cameras out of town, can't see the point.
Well the point is to measure the speed of vehicles driven too fast and faster than they are allowed to be driven. The fact you have just been caught or may have been proves that point.If I was in charge I would get rid of speed cameras out of town, can't see the point.
They tend not to concentrate on the inside lane while ignoring the overtaking lane because...well because the overtaking lane is where it is likely vehicles are being driven fast and the inside lane is full of vehicles being overtaken by the faster cars.
No signs of enforcement being present are required.
pitmansboots said:
Golaboots said:
Hopefully I'll get to go on the course if anything. 8 years ago when I last got done it was a straight 3 points with no warning.
If I was in charge I would get rid of speed cameras out of town, can't see the point.
Well the point is to measure the speed of vehicles driven too fast and faster than they are allowed to be driven. The fact you have just been caught or may have been proves that point.If I was in charge I would get rid of speed cameras out of town, can't see the point.
They tend not to concentrate on the inside lane while ignoring the overtaking lane because...well because the overtaking lane is where it is likely vehicles are being driven fast and the inside lane is full of vehicles being overtaken by the faster cars.
No signs of enforcement being present are required.
Mill Wheel said:
pitmansboots said:
Golaboots said:
Hopefully I'll get to go on the course if anything. 8 years ago when I last got done it was a straight 3 points with no warning.
If I was in charge I would get rid of speed cameras out of town, can't see the point.
Well the point is to measure the speed of vehicles driven too fast and faster than they are allowed to be driven. The fact you have just been caught or may have been proves that point.If I was in charge I would get rid of speed cameras out of town, can't see the point.
They tend not to concentrate on the inside lane while ignoring the overtaking lane because...well because the overtaking lane is where it is likely vehicles are being driven fast and the inside lane is full of vehicles being overtaken by the faster cars.
No signs of enforcement being present are required.
we all no its down to revenue not safety pretty much like anything in the system at the minute .
Oh hang on we might be able to make £30-60quid here lets make up a new law .
Pointless trrying to argue toss as the systems only botherd about those who have the money to pay it , if it was a smack rat they would walk away scott free as probably no licence no insurance and stolen car .
Oh hang on we might be able to make £30-60quid here lets make up a new law .
Pointless trrying to argue toss as the systems only botherd about those who have the money to pay it , if it was a smack rat they would walk away scott free as probably no licence no insurance and stolen car .
wizzbilly said:
we all no its down to revenue not safety pretty much like anything in the system at the minute .
Oh hang on we might be able to make £30-60quid here lets make up a new law .
Pointless trrying to argue toss as the systems only botherd about those who have the money to pay it , if it was a smack rat they would walk away scott free as probably no licence no insurance and stolen car .
Tell you what, let's get rid of the £30/60 fines lets make them all endorsable without fines. Much quicker to make someone responsible for their actions as it would be easier to ban someone. It would also shut the pathetic tosses up who think it's all about revenue. Four times caught without your seatbelt sir, oh dear licence gone for 12 months. People may actually pay attention them.Oh hang on we might be able to make £30-60quid here lets make up a new law .
Pointless trrying to argue toss as the systems only botherd about those who have the money to pay it , if it was a smack rat they would walk away scott free as probably no licence no insurance and stolen car .
Tell you what, you tell me what the easiest way is to make someone be more attentive.
It's too easy nowadays to not take responsibility for your actions.
I didn't mean to make that car swerve I didn't see it, I didn't mean to crash in to that car they stopped too quick, I didn't mean to kill that driver, I was overtaking but he was going too quick and I couldn't get back on to my side of the road in time.
It can't be my fault it's the government. SP&L is really filling up with pathetic a
holes lately. People asking for actual advice instead of just being sad states of new Britain I can reply politely to but seriously standards are dropping.Bacon Is Proof said:
Remove speed limits.
It would force people to think about what a safe speed is.
After all, the vast majority of accidents happen within the limit.
...so alter the regulations to get the majority of accidents to happen 'outside' of the limits. Nice.It would force people to think about what a safe speed is.
After all, the vast majority of accidents happen within the limit.
The idea of regulation and enforcement is to reduce the average speed at which collisions occur; in that way the degree of injury from those collisions is reduced.
The alternative of increasing the number of collisions at higher speeds will, not might, increase the number and seriousness of injuries.
pitmansboots said:
...so alter the regulations to get the majority of accidents to happen 'outside' of the limits. Nice.
No, alter the regulations to improve driving standards and reduce accidents. I appreciate reducing accidents is not something you are concerned with, otherwise you wouldnät have based your racketeering operation on such a niche aspect of collision cause.pitmansboots said:
The idea of regulation and enforcement is to reduce the average speed at which collisions occur; in that way the degree of injury from those collisions is reduced.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I struggle to understand why you are one of the only people on the planet that cannot accept this simple wisdom.pitmansboots said:
The alternative of increasing the number of collisions at higher speeds will, not might, increase the number and seriousness of injuries.
That isnät the alternative though, you are talking from the wrong orifice again.pitmansboots said:
...so alter the regulations to get the majority of accidents to happen 'outside' of the limits. Nice.
The idea of regulation and enforcement is to reduce the average speed at which collisions occur; in that way the degree of injury from those collisions is reduced.
The alternative of increasing the number of collisions at higher speeds will, not might, increase the number and seriousness of injuries.
If you think these scameras reduce accidents you are deluded but then we already know that, 6% attributed to excess speed according to the govt yet all these resources employed to focus on 6% because it's black and white! so what are you doing about the other 94%!! Nothing! That would COST money.The idea of regulation and enforcement is to reduce the average speed at which collisions occur; in that way the degree of injury from those collisions is reduced.
The alternative of increasing the number of collisions at higher speeds will, not might, increase the number and seriousness of injuries.
I'll give you an example of the concern shown for statistics by our local partnership - Billboard adverts and tv, radio ads telling us that in our area 3 out of 4 road deaths (75%) occur on country roads - on checking the website to see where they were doing enforcement for the next month where do you reckon they are sitting? - major A roads!! Hypocrites and what 6% of respect totally gone! Chasing the pound notes!!
Gary
Edited by jaf01uk on Thursday 24th May 11:54
oldsoak said:
Well Gary Gary, we all know they don't reduce accidents at all.
They are aimed at reducing the speed of vehicles to lessen the damage should an accident occur. Those who take no notice get punished for being intransigent gits who have no care for anyone else but themselves.
But pratsmansboots claims they reduce "collisions", I can assure you in the years since I started with the ambulance service we are seeing a fraction of the injuries we used to, and it's not down to cameras, it's down to vehicle safety improvements, even higher speed "collisions" have people walking away, ironically part of the reason that young drivers are the more likely to be injured is because they are driving older vehicles with less safety devices fitted, I am not claiming for a minute that young drivers are not stupid in cars but I'm sure the demographic of those caught by scameras isn't composed mainly of 17 to 25 year olds? 6% of accidents down to speed yet so much money spent on that 6% is my point!They are aimed at reducing the speed of vehicles to lessen the damage should an accident occur. Those who take no notice get punished for being intransigent gits who have no care for anyone else but themselves.
Gary
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff