Yet another 3 points... Which detector?

[shot2bits]

Hi all.. I cover lots of miles on UK road and every couple of years manage to gain another 3 points - mainly in temporary speed limits by laser guns from unmarked white police vans... You could say it's my fault and speeding anywhere is unacceptable but why is it the Police are always on wide roads in unbuilt up areas nailing people for speeding? Why aren't they outside the schools and in towns where people are at greater risk? It annoys me when I see the local boy racers speeding up and down 30mph limits at 50mph yet there's never any police...

Anyway, I need to buy a speed detector but will also require laser detection to detect them when they're lurking in their unmarked white vans - any recommendations? And why unmarked - I thought the point was to avoid an accident - i.e. slow people down rather than catch them?



Thanks all...

[gog]

In my experience Valentine is by far the best!!

[BIG DUNC]

I have a valentine, and have been very pleased with it.
Not the cheapest, but the cheapest is unlikely to be the best.
Obviously you still have to keep your eyes open, but the valentine is a big help

[nobleguy]

shot2bits said:

...but why is it the Police are always on wide roads in unbuilt up areas nailing people for speeding? Why aren't they outside the schools and in towns where people are at greater risk?

Because they don't care about whether what they are doing is actually improving anything. They're robots doing what they are told and not applying any form of human decision to their work.

[shot2bits]

nobleguy said:

shot2bits said:

...but why is it the Police are always on wide roads in unbuilt up areas nailing people for speeding? Why aren't they outside the schools and in towns where people are at greater risk?

Because they don't care about whether what they are doing is actually improving anything. They're robots doing what they are told and not applying any form of human decision to their work.

Makes me so angry - and they wonder why traffic police have a bad name? If they catch me speeding in a 30mph limit where kids are playing then I have no complaint at all. I remember they'd always hang out at the end of a 30mph limit leading to a dual A road simply because they knew people would start to accelerate at that point - there was no houses or paths at the end of the 30limit.

[mg6b]

You know the rules?

Limits are enforceable by law.

You chose to breach rules that you do not personally agree with and you run the risk of penalty.

Sounds like you are unlikely to get penalised in 30mph limits.

Mostly people get away with rule breaches where speeding is concerned.

Occasionally, they are brought to book over it.

That's the game, accept it and move on! The choice is down to you.
Personal feelings are irrelevant, especially when it is about personal inconvenience or the fact that the law is there to prevent some peoples idea of fun on the overall basis of safety for the masses.

[FNG]

mg6b said:

You know the rules?

Limits are enforceable by law.

You chose to breach rules that you do not personally agree with and you run the risk of penalty.

Sounds like you are unlikely to get penalised in 30mph limits.

Mostly people get away with rule breaches where speeding is concerned.

Occasionally, they are brought to book over it.

That's the game, accept it and move on! The choice is down to you.

Fair enough, we know the game and some of us play it, others don't.

mg6b said:

...it is about personal inconvenience or the fact that the law is there to prevent some peoples idea of fun on the overall basis of safety for the masses.

If the limits were there as a safety measure, there'd be more focus on compliance in town centres and outside schools at hometime.

There isn't.

If road safety policy with respect to speed compliance is based on trying to get the populace to comply at all times "just in case" a BiB is hiding at the end of a 30 zone where exceeding the limit has no perceptible effect on safety, it can only:

- severely dilute the relevance of speed limit compliance on road safety

- alienate the generally law-abiding public

- refocus driver attention on speed compliance in lieu of hazard awareness

- reduce the need for the driver to judge appropriate speed for him or herself

- make a mockery of compliance in areas where the limits are set too low, or have been lowered in a misguided attempt to make the roads generally safer

Obey the speed limit in the name of road safety? Doesn't look to me like road safety is the aim, blanket compliance is. It doesn't follow that lower speed equals safer roads, just marginally slower but more prevalent accidents.

Enforcement needs to be focussed on established danger spots if it's to be credible. That's not the nice straight open bit of road 2 miles from an accident blackspot but still within ACPO guidelines, that's at the actual blackspot with warnings beforehand. Wouldn't get nearly so many convictions but it might prevent accidents, who knows?

mg6b said:

...the law is there to prevent some peoples idea of fun...

Exceeding the speed limit is not restricted to those who are having fun doing so. We're not all feeling excitingly daring to be exceeding the limit a bit - oooh aren't we rebellious? No. It's just everyday practicality and use of common sense / judgement rather than slack-jawed thoughtless subservience.

From my obeservations, there's very few who blindly comply and I'm glad for that. It means people are driving with their eyes open and their perceptions somewhat heightened.

[shot2bits]

mg6b said:

You know the rules?

Limits are enforceable by law.

You chose to breach rules that you do not personally agree with and you run the risk of penalty.

Sounds like you are unlikely to get penalised in 30mph limits.

Mostly people get away with rule breaches where speeding is concerned.

Occasionally, they are brought to book over it.

That's the game, accept it and move on! The choice is down to you.
Personal feelings are irrelevant, especially when it is about personal inconvenience or the fact that the law is there to prevent some peoples idea of fun on the overall basis of safety for the masses.

Here's the thing - In five years I have NEVER seen any Police presence outside of my daughters School yet I'd say 70% of cars break the speed limit and show no consideration for the fact hundreds of children are walking around / getting into parked cars. As mentioned, I cover quite a few miles and in my experience, the Police are only in areas where there is no real obvious danger but the location represents an ideal opportunity to book as many motorists as possible. I agree - the law is the law and if you speed you run the risk of being booked. To be honest though, I might be more inclined to take my 3 points on the chin if I thought the Police were around schools and towns as much as they are the local dual carriageway hanging off a bridge nailing cars for doing 90mph.

[vipers]

All this talk of us poor motorists being prosecuted for this and that, its well overdue for the authorities to start prosecuting pedestrians who ignore the highway code, like stepping on crossings when their light is RED and ours is GREEN, that relly gets back up when you are waiting patiently to drive off.

[vonhosen]

vipers said:

All this talk of us poor motorists being prosecuted for this and that, its well overdue for the authorities to start prosecuting pedestrians who ignore the highway code, like stepping on crossings when their light is RED and ours is GREEN, that relly gets back up when you are waiting patiently to drive off.

The highway code is not law. Contravention of it on it's own isn't an offence.
Where the highway code refers to law it will say 'MUST NOT' within the rule.

[vipers]

vonhosen said:

vipers said:

All this talk of us poor motorists being prosecuted for this and that, its well overdue for the authorities to start prosecuting pedestrians who ignore the highway code, like stepping on crossings when their light is RED and ours is GREEN, that relly gets back up when you are waiting patiently to drive off.

The highway code is not law. Contravention of it on it's own isn't an offence.
Where the highway code refers to law it will say 'MUST NOT' within the rule.

I am sure the answer is simple Von. but the Highway Code states speed limits, and if we exceed them, we get proscuted, so if its not law, why are we done for it, The same Highway Code surely states when pedestrians should and should not step onto crossings? Not sure what it actually says about crossing, but surely it will say YOU MUST NOT STEP ONTO A CROSSING WHEN THE LIGHTS ARE RED, or perhaps not, sorry too busy to hike out the code, but I am sure you know the answer. If it doesnt, then perhaps it should.

[vonhosen]

vipers said:

vonhosen said:

vipers said:

All this talk of us poor motorists being prosecuted for this and that, its well overdue for the authorities to start prosecuting pedestrians who ignore the highway code, like stepping on crossings when their light is RED and ours is GREEN, that relly gets back up when you are waiting patiently to drive off.

The highway code is not law. Contravention of it on it's own isn't an offence.
Where the highway code refers to law it will say 'MUST NOT' within the rule.

I am sure the answer is simple Von. but the Highway Code states speed limits, and if we exceed them, we get proscuted, so if its not law, why are we done for it, The same Highway Code surely states when pedestrians should and should not step onto crossings? Not sure what it actually says about crossing, but surely it will say YOU MUST NOT STEP ONTO A CROSSING WHEN THE LIGHTS ARE RED, or perhaps not, sorry too busy to hike out the code, but I am sure you know the answer. If it doesnt, then perhaps it should.

You aren't prosecuted for speeding because of what the Highway code says.
When offence is read out, they won't be be saying "contrary to rule.... in the Highway Code".
It will be with referrence to the Road Traffic Regulation Act, because that is what makes it an offence.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 28th April 21:13

[vipers]

Thanks for that Von, so is there anything a pedestrian can be charged with?

[vonhosen]

vipers said:

Thanks for that Von, so is there anything a pedestrian can be charged with?

Yes, in some circumstances.

[vipers]

vonhosen said:

vipers said:

Thanks for that Von, so is there anything a pedestrian can be charged with?

Yes, in some circumstances.

Thanks for that glimmer of hope Von.

[Tafia]

mg6b said:

You know the rules?

Limits are enforceable by law.

You chose to breach rules that you do not personally agree with and you run the risk of penalty.

Sounds like you are unlikely to get penalised in 30mph limits.

Mostly people get away with rule breaches where speeding is concerned.

Occasionally, they are brought to book over it.

That's the game, accept it and move on! The choice is down to you.
Personal feelings are irrelevant, especially when it is about personal inconvenience or the fact that the law is there to prevent some peoples idea of fun on the overall basis of safety for the masses.

Ever heard of mens rea?

[Tafia]

FNG said:

mg6b said:

You know the rules?

Limits are enforceable by law.

You chose to breach rules that you do not personally agree with and you run the risk of penalty.

Sounds like you are unlikely to get penalised in 30mph limits.

Mostly people get away with rule breaches where speeding is concerned.

Occasionally, they are brought to book over it.

That's the game, accept it and move on! The choice is down to you.

Fair enough, we know the game and some of us play it, others don't.

mg6b said:

...it is about personal inconvenience or the fact that the law is there to prevent some peoples idea of fun on the overall basis of safety for the masses.

If the limits were there as a safety measure, there'd be more focus on compliance in town centres and outside schools at hometime.

There isn't.

If road safety policy with respect to speed compliance is based on trying to get the populace to comply at all times "just in case" a BiB is hiding at the end of a 30 zone where exceeding the limit has no perceptible effect on safety, it can only:

- severely dilute the relevance of speed limit compliance on road safety

- alienate the generally law-abiding public

- refocus driver attention on speed compliance in lieu of hazard awareness

- reduce the need for the driver to judge appropriate speed for him or herself

- make a mockery of compliance in areas where the limits are set too low, or have been lowered in a misguided attempt to make the roads generally safer

Obey the speed limit in the name of road safety? Doesn't look to me like road safety is the aim, blanket compliance is. It doesn't follow that lower speed equals safer roads, just marginally slower but more prevalent accidents.

Enforcement needs to be focussed on established danger spots if it's to be credible. That's not the nice straight open bit of road 2 miles from an accident blackspot but still within ACPO guidelines, that's at the actual blackspot with warnings beforehand. Wouldn't get nearly so many convictions but it might prevent accidents, who knows?

mg6b said:

...the law is there to prevent some peoples idea of fun...

Exceeding the speed limit is not restricted to those who are having fun doing so. We're not all feeling excitingly daring to be exceeding the limit a bit - oooh aren't we rebellious? No. It's just everyday practicality and use of common sense / judgement rather than slack-jawed thoughtless subservience.

From my obeservations, there's very few who blindly comply and I'm glad for that. It means people are driving with their eyes open and their perceptions somewhat heightened.

Great post sir.

[Tafia]

vonhosen said:

vipers said:

All this talk of us poor motorists being prosecuted for this and that, its well overdue for the authorities to start prosecuting pedestrians who ignore the highway code, like stepping on crossings when their light is RED and ours is GREEN, that relly gets back up when you are waiting patiently to drive off.

The highway code is not law. Contravention of it on it's own isn't an offence.
Where the highway code refers to law it will say 'MUST NOT' within the rule.

Von says jaywalking is OK then as there is no law against it.

[vonhosen]

Tafia said:

vonhosen said:

vipers said:

All this talk of us poor motorists being prosecuted for this and that, its well overdue for the authorities to start prosecuting pedestrians who ignore the highway code, like stepping on crossings when their light is RED and ours is GREEN, that relly gets back up when you are waiting patiently to drive off.

The highway code is not law. Contravention of it on it's own isn't an offence.
Where the highway code refers to law it will say 'MUST NOT' within the rule.

Von says jaywalking is OK then as there is no law against it.

I'm replying to the question, there isn't an offence of jaywalking in this country. There are limited offences in specific circumstances in relation to pedestrians & roads, such as walking on motorways.

Vipers wanted them prosecuted, but you can't prosecute where there isn't an offence.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 29th April 11:30

[mg6b]

Tafia said:

Ever heard of mens rea?

Only applicable in law where the offence is not absolute or of strict liability! Most motoring offences are absolute and no mens rea is required to prove.