Oh balls! What are they setting camera vans too these days?!
Discussion
Hi all
Was doing a little trip earlier on to run an errand for someone and as it's a familiar trodden route, I was being very stupid and not paying a lot of attention to what was going on.
Driving along a part of the A50 that used to be 50 limit and recently changed to a 40 (not making excuses before anyone starts). I've just dragged my dash cam footage down and the GPS software shows me at between 46 and 49 in the distance in which I can see the van on the video.
So, I take it I'm definitely expecting a NIP?
Was doing a little trip earlier on to run an errand for someone and as it's a familiar trodden route, I was being very stupid and not paying a lot of attention to what was going on.
Driving along a part of the A50 that used to be 50 limit and recently changed to a 40 (not making excuses before anyone starts). I've just dragged my dash cam footage down and the GPS software shows me at between 46 and 49 in the distance in which I can see the van on the video.
So, I take it I'm definitely expecting a NIP?
speedking31 said:
High Legh? Haven't seen any enforcement since the limits were stupidly reduced. Was NSL (60) to 40 btw.
46 indicated is probably 42 actual which is < 40 + 10% + 2 so I wouldn't lose too much sleep just yet.
A50 Leicester. 46 indicated is probably 42 actual which is < 40 + 10% + 2 so I wouldn't lose too much sleep just yet.
And speeds mentioned are gps given from dash cam software.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Pablo68 said:
I would say expect your very own invite to donate to the Police Benevolent Fund anytime soon.
Except FPN's and prosecution fines aren't awarded to the police. Edited by Pablo68 on Thursday 2nd October 19:13
Pablo68 said:
Funds from SACs are though. Which is why Dorset let you do one every year as opposed to every 3 years.
SOME of the funds. And in fairness, why shouldn't they be. If the police are expected to clear up the mess after those who can't use excess speed safely? Edited by Pablo68 on Thursday 2nd October 19:13
Police for large private gatherings etc are paid for their time, so why not a (very small) percentage of the revenue gained from speeders? Considering all revenue from other FPN's, phone whilst driving etc all goes to the govt, and not the police.
Rovinghawk said:
Yeah! Why shouldn't the police make money by targeting people?
It's not as if there could be even the slightest whiff of conflict of interest, is it?
Their popularity will soar on the back of their fundraising. Huzzah!
Not surprised to see you pop your head up with something like that.It's not as if there could be even the slightest whiff of conflict of interest, is it?
Their popularity will soar on the back of their fundraising. Huzzah!
Yea, it's a crazy concept that isn't it...the police targeting people who break the law. Weird.
Eclassy said:
Maybe the police can keep a quarter of a householders stolen property that is recovered from criminals just because the householder didnt have effective security in place.
Yea good idea. Or maybe they could charge an amount of money based on the property you live in, and call it, I don't know, say council tax or something. Some of this could then go to the police to help cover such a scenario. It'll probably never take off though.The problem with the police benefiting financially is that they could be seen to be making operational decisions for financial reasons, i.e. "let's divert some resources from investigating burglaries to catching speeders instead, because the budget could do with a boost this quarter..."
Even if they aren't doing that, removing the financial aspect removes any suggestion of impropriety.
Even if they aren't doing that, removing the financial aspect removes any suggestion of impropriety.
Mk3Spitfire said:
SOME of the funds. And in fairness, why shouldn't they be.
Because (and I think this may have been covered before here) it creates a perverse incentive to maximise tickets and install more speed cameras (and have more vans), even when they aren't the optimum solution (which I think may be the case occasionally, though maybe you don't accept that).And (again stop me if you've heard this before) it creates a perverse incentive to put cameras not in the places where it's most dangerous to speed, but in places where large numbers of (almost always safe) drivers exceed the speed limit by smallish margins (maybe because the speed limit is set too low, rather than all those drivers being homicidal maniacs?)
Mk3Spitfire said:
If the police are expected to clear up the mess after those who can't use excess speed safely?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about allegedly exceeding a speed limit which (by all sensible accounts, and like many, many other speed limits these days) is set too low. Did I miss the bit where someone showed that this thread was about "not being able to use excess speed safely"? Are you unhappy because you were all set to lay into the OP and say "I've got a way of ensuring that you don't have to worry about speed camera vans at all" and then he took the wind out of your sails by saying "not making excuses before anyone [who could he mean?] starts"?Would you have an objection if speed limits started to be set by impartial traffic engineers who were not motivated by NIMBY "people shouldn't be using MY ROAD" votes or anti-car sentiment (as opposed to by councillors who often are and may not even drive)? Don't you think such a move would strengthen your advocacy of the speed limit as some kind of serious road safety factor? And BTW, why would you say SP&L has far more "speed kills" posters than it used to? Do you think any of them are trolling?
GPSHead said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
SOME of the funds. And in fairness, why shouldn't they be.
Because (and I think this may have been covered before here) it creates a perverse incentive to maximise tickets and install more speed cameras (and have more vans), even when they aren't the optimum solution (which I think may be the case occasionally, though maybe you don't accept that).And (again stop me if you've heard this before) it creates a perverse incentive to put cameras not in the places where it's most dangerous to speed, but in places where large numbers of (almost always safe) drivers exceed the speed limit by smallish margins (maybe because the speed limit is set too low, rather than all those drivers being homicidal maniacs?)
Mk3Spitfire said:
If the police are expected to clear up the mess after those who can't use excess speed safely?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about allegedly exceeding a speed limit which (by all sensible accounts, and like many, many other speed limits these days) is set too low. Did I miss the bit where someone showed that this thread was about "not being able to use excess speed safely"? Are you unhappy because you were all set to lay into the OP and say "I've got a way of ensuring that you don't have to worry about speed camera vans at all" and then he took the wind out of your sails by saying "not making excuses before anyone [who could he mean?] starts"?Would you have an objection if speed limits started to be set by impartial traffic engineers who were not motivated by NIMBY "people shouldn't be using MY ROAD" votes or anti-car sentiment (as opposed to by councillors who often are and may not even drive)? Don't you think such a move would strengthen your advocacy of the speed limit as some kind of serious road safety factor? And BTW, why would you say SP&L has far more "speed kills" posters than it used to? Do you think any of them are trolling?
Let's not go there again?
Who is "the victim" in a safety camera case where someone is photographed driving faster than allowed?
No-one crashed, no-one was hurt, and there was no property damage. There may not even have been a witness to the horrifying nature of the speed.
So who gets the "victim surcharge" and why?
The authorities plainly don't see this speeeding behavious as so potentially dangerous that would necessitate getting out and stopping it before an offence committed or catching and prosecuting the "criminal". Simply sending an invoice in the post is sufficient to bring in the cash.
No-one crashed, no-one was hurt, and there was no property damage. There may not even have been a witness to the horrifying nature of the speed.
So who gets the "victim surcharge" and why?
The authorities plainly don't see this speeeding behavious as so potentially dangerous that would necessitate getting out and stopping it before an offence committed or catching and prosecuting the "criminal". Simply sending an invoice in the post is sufficient to bring in the cash.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Yea, it's a crazy concept that isn't it...the police targeting people who break the law. Weird.
An even better concept would be if somebody enforced ALL laws with equal zeal and enthusiasm... such as having fog lights on when there is no fog, that one about tailgating and monopolising the middle lane of the motorway... or driving without due care!
GoneAnon said:
Who is "the victim" in a safety camera case where someone is photographed driving faster than allowed?
No-one crashed, no-one was hurt, and there was no property damage. There may not even have been a witness to the horrifying nature of the speed.
Ah.. The victimless crimeNo-one crashed, no-one was hurt, and there was no property damage. There may not even have been a witness to the horrifying nature of the speed.
I'm sure you happily drink and drive so long as you don't have an accident
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff