Speed Cameras Switched off
Discussion
Interesting article: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/national/15641090.O...
What I don't understand is how the other nine police forces apparently have either not responded or will not disclose this information. I assumed that a freedom of information request must be answered, so are these forces potentially in contempt?
What I don't understand is how the other nine police forces apparently have either not responded or will not disclose this information. I assumed that a freedom of information request must be answered, so are these forces potentially in contempt?
Biker 1 said:
Interesting article: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/national/15641090.O...
What I don't understand is how the other nine police forces apparently have either not responded or will not disclose this information. I assumed that a freedom of information request must be answered, so are these forces potentially in contempt?
A FOIA request can sometimes lawfully be refused on various grounds. I have no idea whether any such ground was invoked in the cases mentioned. What I don't understand is how the other nine police forces apparently have either not responded or will not disclose this information. I assumed that a freedom of information request must be answered, so are these forces potentially in contempt?
Refusing a FOIA request without a proper reason is not contempt of court, but it may result in enforcement action by the Information Commissioner.
Breadvan72 said:
A FOIA request can sometimes lawfully be refused on various grounds. I have no idea whether any such ground was invoked in the cases mentioned.
Refusing a FOIA request without a proper reason is not contempt of court, but it may result in enforcement action by the Information Commissioner.
The forces who have not yet replied may still be compiling the details Refusing a FOIA request without a proper reason is not contempt of court, but it may result in enforcement action by the Information Commissioner.
My knowledge is well out of date, but before camera partnership, the ratio of camera sites, with boxes, and active cameras was always about 2:1. I think there was one road near Croydon that had 7 sites (boxes) and just 1 camera.
The boxes for GATSOs were about £11k while a camera (basically a Leica, with added bits) was more than £32k. As they had to be attended to change film, it was a simple process to switch the camera to a different site and have a dummy flasher unit, in the empty one.
It seems that not much has changed.
The boxes for GATSOs were about £11k while a camera (basically a Leica, with added bits) was more than £32k. As they had to be attended to change film, it was a simple process to switch the camera to a different site and have a dummy flasher unit, in the empty one.
It seems that not much has changed.
I watched an episode of Traffic Cops last week where they said they set the mobile camera vans to 35 when in a 30 zone, anyone above the 10% + 2 rule got a NIP.
If speed was that important it would be on 30, no exceptions, especially considering speeding is an absolute offence. The same as if speed was so important, every speeding camera site would contain a camera and not be an empty box.
It's all a load of rubbish.
If speed was that important it would be on 30, no exceptions, especially considering speeding is an absolute offence. The same as if speed was so important, every speeding camera site would contain a camera and not be an empty box.
It's all a load of rubbish.
ashleyman said:
I watched an episode of Traffic Cops last week where they said they set the mobile camera vans to 35 when in a 30 zone, anyone above the 10% + 2 rule got a NIP.
If speed was that important it would be on 30, no exceptions, especially considering speeding is an absolute offence. The same as if speed was so important, every speeding camera site would contain a camera and not be an empty box.
It's all a load of rubbish.
There's definitely some rubbish in that.If speed was that important it would be on 30, no exceptions, especially considering speeding is an absolute offence. The same as if speed was so important, every speeding camera site would contain a camera and not be an empty box.
It's all a load of rubbish.
I've driven back from Hants to Notts today, mostly M1. I was saying to Sarah, the way motorways are going I'm getting close to selecting 'avoid motorways' on the nav in the future. Yellow vulture cameras scattered about, what speed do they trigger at 10%+2mph or just at reduced, sections of 'smart' motorways. Miles after miles of specs controlled 50mph zones, light traffic, and NO workforce to protect. And to really take the biscuit a 60mph camera controlled section from Mansfield in the name of C02 emissions, give me bloody strength!!
If a German visited England and went on our motorways they'd laugh their head off, wondering why everything was so draconian, and wondering why we have to sit so slowly on a four lane motorway which you could land a 747 on. Mind, these land at more than 50mph, so they'd be f
ked too.
I would love to meet the man (or woman) who comes up with all this BS on our motorways, and ask them what the holy crap they're thinking of!
If a German visited England and went on our motorways they'd laugh their head off, wondering why everything was so draconian, and wondering why we have to sit so slowly on a four lane motorway which you could land a 747 on. Mind, these land at more than 50mph, so they'd be f
ked too.I would love to meet the man (or woman) who comes up with all this BS on our motorways, and ask them what the holy crap they're thinking of!
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
If a German visited England and went on our motorways they'd laugh their head off, wondering why everything was so draconian, and wondering why we have to sit so slowly on a four lane motorway which you could land a 747 on. Mind, these land at more than 50mph, so they'd be fked too.
I would love to meet the man (or woman) who comes up with all this BS on our motorways, and ask them what the holy crap they're thinking of!
Of course they would.ked too.I would love to meet the man (or woman) who comes up with all this BS on our motorways, and ask them what the holy crap they're thinking of!
Two strikes & you're out.
paul.deitch said:
The Germans are so organised that there is an easy to understand table of fines and bans.
If you get a repeat offence in or outside a city over 26km/h (within the 3 year limit) then you will get a 1 month ban.
Higher speeds result in more pain.
Link is here if anyone wants to check.
https://blitzerkanzlei.de/bussgeldkatalog/bussgeld...
Speeding in the city
Zu schnell Fine Euros Punkte Ban Time Months
bis 10 km/h 15 – –
11-15 km/h 25 – –
16-20 km/h 35 – –
21-25 km/h 80 1 –
26-30 km/h 100 1 (Im Wiederholungsfall)
31-40 km/h 160 2 1
41-50 km/h 200 2 1
51-60 km/h 280 2 2
61-70 km/h 480 2 3
über 70 km/h 680 2 3
Speeding outside the city
Zu schnell Bußgeld Punkte Fahrverbot
bis 10 km/h 10 – –
11-15 km/h 20 – –
16-20 km/h 30 – –
21-25 km/h 70 1 –
26-30 km/h 80 1 (Im Wiederholungsfall)
31-40 km/h 120 1 (Im Wiederholungsfall)
41-50 km/h 160 2 1
51-60 km/h 240 2 1
61-70 km/h 440 2 2
über 70 km/h 600 2 3
- sorry that I can't get the tabulation correct but I am sure that you can work it out.
So it is quite believable that his mate got banned for a month.
Slopes away from keyboard......................... yes it happened to me a couple of years ago.
If you get a repeat offence in or outside a city over 26km/h (within the 3 year limit) then you will get a 1 month ban.
Higher speeds result in more pain.
Link is here if anyone wants to check.
https://blitzerkanzlei.de/bussgeldkatalog/bussgeld...
Speeding in the city
Zu schnell Fine Euros Punkte Ban Time Months
bis 10 km/h 15 – –
11-15 km/h 25 – –
16-20 km/h 35 – –
21-25 km/h 80 1 –
26-30 km/h 100 1 (Im Wiederholungsfall)
31-40 km/h 160 2 1
41-50 km/h 200 2 1
51-60 km/h 280 2 2
61-70 km/h 480 2 3
über 70 km/h 680 2 3
Speeding outside the city
Zu schnell Bußgeld Punkte Fahrverbot
bis 10 km/h 10 – –
11-15 km/h 20 – –
16-20 km/h 30 – –
21-25 km/h 70 1 –
26-30 km/h 80 1 (Im Wiederholungsfall)
31-40 km/h 120 1 (Im Wiederholungsfall)
41-50 km/h 160 2 1
51-60 km/h 240 2 1
61-70 km/h 440 2 2
über 70 km/h 600 2 3
- sorry that I can't get the tabulation correct but I am sure that you can work it out.
So it is quite believable that his mate got banned for a month.
Slopes away from keyboard......................... yes it happened to me a couple of years ago.
I do not have a problem with cameras in the main, they are a necessity and the figures, though probably nicely manipulated, do not lie.
My issues are with certain enforcement methods used by the operators.
Camera vans for instance. If you do your research you can find out they are placed in areas where there are more than a few fatal or serious incidents. Fair enough. Not random placements. So you will get camera signs etc.
But that stretch of road might be 5 miles long. And they always put the van just after the 30 sign or 40 sign.
Is that where the accidents took place? Think about it, a GATSO or Truvelo is going to be, (these days) near the point of incident or historical incidents, it has to be now, any others were long removed or are redundant and disused. But putting a camera van pointing at a 30 sign at a spot where there are no incidents but on a road where there are some is surely just a clever way of making money by putting them right near the sign.
I am not quibbling about being done, anyone speeding risks it, but this does seem a slightly shifty way of doing it
My issues are with certain enforcement methods used by the operators.
Camera vans for instance. If you do your research you can find out they are placed in areas where there are more than a few fatal or serious incidents. Fair enough. Not random placements. So you will get camera signs etc.
But that stretch of road might be 5 miles long. And they always put the van just after the 30 sign or 40 sign.
Is that where the accidents took place? Think about it, a GATSO or Truvelo is going to be, (these days) near the point of incident or historical incidents, it has to be now, any others were long removed or are redundant and disused. But putting a camera van pointing at a 30 sign at a spot where there are no incidents but on a road where there are some is surely just a clever way of making money by putting them right near the sign.
I am not quibbling about being done, anyone speeding risks it, but this does seem a slightly shifty way of doing it
chunder27 said:
I do not have a problem with cameras in the main, they are a necessity and the figures, though probably nicely manipulated, do not lie.
My issues are with certain enforcement methods used by the operators.
Camera vans for instance. If you do your research you can find out they are placed in areas where there are more than a few fatal or serious incidents. Fair enough. Not random placements. So you will get camera signs etc.
But that stretch of road might be 5 miles long. And they always put the van just after the 30 sign or 40 sign.
Is that where the accidents took place? Think about it, a GATSO or Truvelo is going to be, (these days) near the point of incident or historical incidents, it has to be now, any others were long removed or are redundant and disused. But putting a camera van pointing at a 30 sign at a spot where there are no incidents but on a road where there are some is surely just a clever way of making money by putting them right near the sign.
I am not quibbling about being done, anyone speeding risks it, but this does seem a slightly shifty way of doing it
a) If you know they 'always' place the van just after the sign they are making it easy for you by behaving predictably, don't speed there.My issues are with certain enforcement methods used by the operators.
Camera vans for instance. If you do your research you can find out they are placed in areas where there are more than a few fatal or serious incidents. Fair enough. Not random placements. So you will get camera signs etc.
But that stretch of road might be 5 miles long. And they always put the van just after the 30 sign or 40 sign.
Is that where the accidents took place? Think about it, a GATSO or Truvelo is going to be, (these days) near the point of incident or historical incidents, it has to be now, any others were long removed or are redundant and disused. But putting a camera van pointing at a 30 sign at a spot where there are no incidents but on a road where there are some is surely just a clever way of making money by putting them right near the sign.
I am not quibbling about being done, anyone speeding risks it, but this does seem a slightly shifty way of doing it
b) The Police have always been able to enforce the limit anywhere, collision history or not & still can, so you are potentially at risk anywhere you speed.
Johnnytheboy said:
Wiltshire refused to reply.
Weren't they the first county to turn them all off and sack their camera van operatives?
Has anything changed?
One of my friends is a police officer in Wiltshire and I spoke with him about this a few weeks ago. He said that all the cameras in the county are switched off and they don't have the vans either. They just do it the old fashioned way with roads policing officers stopping drivers at the time - a much fairer way IMHO as they can decide if words of advice are more appropriate than a ticket. Weren't they the first county to turn them all off and sack their camera van operatives?
Has anything changed?
chunder27 said:
I do not have a problem with cameras in the main, they are a necessity and the figures, though probably nicely manipulated, do not lie.
My issues are with certain enforcement methods used by the operators.
Camera vans for instance. If you do your research you can find out they are placed in areas where there are more than a few fatal or serious incidents. Fair enough. Not random placements. So you will get camera signs etc.
But that stretch of road might be 5 miles long. And they always put the van just after the 30 sign or 40 sign.
Is that where the accidents took place? Think about it, a GATSO or Truvelo is going to be, (these days) near the point of incident or historical incidents, it has to be now, any others were long removed or are redundant and disused. But putting a camera van pointing at a 30 sign at a spot where there are no incidents but on a road where there are some is surely just a clever way of making money by putting them right near the sign.
I am not quibbling about being done, anyone speeding risks it, but this does seem a slightly shifty way of doing it
I think I missed something: Why are speed cameras a necessity? And which figures which 'do not lie' are the ones you are referring to? My issues are with certain enforcement methods used by the operators.
Camera vans for instance. If you do your research you can find out they are placed in areas where there are more than a few fatal or serious incidents. Fair enough. Not random placements. So you will get camera signs etc.
But that stretch of road might be 5 miles long. And they always put the van just after the 30 sign or 40 sign.
Is that where the accidents took place? Think about it, a GATSO or Truvelo is going to be, (these days) near the point of incident or historical incidents, it has to be now, any others were long removed or are redundant and disused. But putting a camera van pointing at a 30 sign at a spot where there are no incidents but on a road where there are some is surely just a clever way of making money by putting them right near the sign.
I am not quibbling about being done, anyone speeding risks it, but this does seem a slightly shifty way of doing it
I am pretty sure there is no scientific data that actually proves these things 'work' or that the whole 'system approach' to road safety has been critically appraised.
They might slow down cars here and there but impact on safety is what I'm more interested in.
Having said that the advocates of the system no longer even pretend the 'system' is anything to do with accident reduction, so the hypothesis for test would need to be debated and clarified first.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff