My first NIP after 16 years without points...
Discussion
It won't affect your insurance very much if at all. So don't worry about that.
As long as you last another 16 yrs before the next one the only downer will be the £60 fine.
All in all considered and I presume you have broken the speed limit more than just this particular time then its really not too bad.
chin up.
As long as you last another 16 yrs before the next one the only downer will be the £60 fine.
All in all considered and I presume you have broken the speed limit more than just this particular time then its really not too bad.
chin up.
Hoolio said:
I received my first NIP in the post today. Was caught by a scamera van on the A31 (Hogs Back) doing allegedly 71mph in a 60 zone.
I can see no reason at all as to why the van should be there other than to generate revenue for Gordon Brown and his cronies and quite frankly i'm pi**ed off.
What am I likely to get?
When should I tell my insurance company? Now or at renewal time?
Is there anything I can do to avoid getting points / fine?
Thanks in advance for your words of wisdom.
The scamera van is there because it makes money. Speaking as one who has used it frequently at most times of the day for a good few years, the Hog's Back has no need of a 60 limit. The accidents that have occurred have generally involved vehicles crossing a carriageway ... which engineering would have dealt with at the point of risk, rather than by imposing a blanket limit along its length - StreakyI can see no reason at all as to why the van should be there other than to generate revenue for Gordon Brown and his cronies and quite frankly i'm pi**ed off.
What am I likely to get?
When should I tell my insurance company? Now or at renewal time?
Is there anything I can do to avoid getting points / fine?
Thanks in advance for your words of wisdom.
Is this the letter asking you to incriminate yourself or the second one telling you that you are being prosecuted.
I've just got my second letter offering me a Speed awareness course. I was caught doing 39 in a 30 limit so as the percentage over the top was far greater on mine you may get the same offer although mine was in the Met area, your constabulary may not work the same way.
I've just got my second letter offering me a Speed awareness course. I was caught doing 39 in a 30 limit so as the percentage over the top was far greater on mine you may get the same offer although mine was in the Met area, your constabulary may not work the same way.
Sheriff JWPepper said:
I don't care for camera vans much but if their purpose is to stop people speeding wouldn't you as a operator site it where you think you will catch people speeding.
But isn't there purpose to stop people crashing? Yes the theory is that if they stop people speeding they'll stop them crashing but thats patently flawed, because not only have cameras failed to stop people speeding they have also failed to stop them crashing!Chrisgr31 said:
Sheriff JWPepper said:
I don't care for camera vans much but if their purpose is to stop people speeding wouldn't you as a operator site it where you think you will catch people speeding.
But isn't there purpose to stop people crashing? Yes the theory is that if they stop people speeding they'll stop them crashing but thats patently flawed, because not only have cameras failed to stop people speeding they have also failed to stop them crashing!Enforcement is to uphold those principles.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th December 16:33
I disagree Von.
Speed limits WERE there as a tool for police officers to use to punish people who needed punishing.
The speed differential does affect outcome, but on an empty road what are you measuring that speed differential against when there's nothing to hit?
Surely the ammount of danger is Speed diff X chance of collision.
30 MPH X Lots of children outside school = big number,
100 MPH X empty motorway = very small number.
We all know which one you get hammered for, and the scamere partnerships know it as well.
Speed limits WERE there as a tool for police officers to use to punish people who needed punishing.
The speed differential does affect outcome, but on an empty road what are you measuring that speed differential against when there's nothing to hit?
Surely the ammount of danger is Speed diff X chance of collision.
30 MPH X Lots of children outside school = big number,
100 MPH X empty motorway = very small number.
We all know which one you get hammered for, and the scamere partnerships know it as well.
bryan35 said:
I disagree Von.
Speed limits WERE there as a tool for police officers to use to punish people who needed punishing.
What rot, that's not their intention.Speed limits WERE there as a tool for police officers to use to punish people who needed punishing.
If people need punishing because they've committed an offence, use the offence they've committed.
bryan35 said:
The speed differential does affect outcome, but on an empty road what are you measuring that speed differential against when there's nothing to hit?
You never know what's going to appear & people frequently do miss seeing things that they shouldn't.bryan35 said:
Surely the ammount of danger is Speed diff X chance of collision.
30 MPH X Lots of children outside school = big number,
100 MPH X empty motorway = very small number.
We all know which one you get hammered for, and the scamere partnerships know it as well.
Offence 1 potential WDC (if it's not a WDC then so what if they were doing 30)30 MPH X Lots of children outside school = big number,
100 MPH X empty motorway = very small number.
We all know which one you get hammered for, and the scamere partnerships know it as well.
Offence 2 Speeding
The penalties available to the court for WDC are higher than for speeding.
Fort Jefferson said:
Sheriff JWPepper said:
I don't care for camera vans much but if their purpose is to stop people speeding wouldn't you as a operator site it where you think you will catch people speeding.
They are not there to stop you speeding, they are there to punish you after you've done it.
Speed enforcement as a road safety tactic isn't working anyway. With the numbers of cameras, and especially vans, increasing over the last few years you'd expect to see a decrease in KSI, which is supposedly the aim, and is also what officialdom says has happened.
Wrong.
The police misreport and under-report injuries and deaths compared to the qualified medical staff who receive the dead and treat the injured.
"According to police statistics, rates of people killed or seriously injured on the roads fell consistently from 85.9 per 100 000 in 1996 to 59.4 per 100 000 in 2004. Over the same time, however, hospital admission rates for traffic injuries were almost unchanged at 90.0 in 1996 and 91.1 in 2004...The definition of serious injury in police statistics includes every hospital admission; in each year, none the less, the number of admissions exceeded the number of injuries reported in the police system."
From the British Medical Journal:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38883.593831.4...
Almost unchanged = increased. Heads should roll in the DfT, and the police also for swallowing the politicians' bullshit and increasing the number of people killed and injured on the roads at a time when safer roads, safer cars and better medical treatment should be resulting in a much improved casualty rate.
The Office of the National Statistician was investigating why the police (not medics) have got it so badly wrong. Waste of time. The reason is clear - the police are working under targets, set by the government and an incompetent government at that, and this is known to cause operational distortions in policy and measurement.
Wrong.
The police misreport and under-report injuries and deaths compared to the qualified medical staff who receive the dead and treat the injured.
"According to police statistics, rates of people killed or seriously injured on the roads fell consistently from 85.9 per 100 000 in 1996 to 59.4 per 100 000 in 2004. Over the same time, however, hospital admission rates for traffic injuries were almost unchanged at 90.0 in 1996 and 91.1 in 2004...The definition of serious injury in police statistics includes every hospital admission; in each year, none the less, the number of admissions exceeded the number of injuries reported in the police system."
From the British Medical Journal:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38883.593831.4...
Almost unchanged = increased. Heads should roll in the DfT, and the police also for swallowing the politicians' bullshit and increasing the number of people killed and injured on the roads at a time when safer roads, safer cars and better medical treatment should be resulting in a much improved casualty rate.
The Office of the National Statistician was investigating why the police (not medics) have got it so badly wrong. Waste of time. The reason is clear - the police are working under targets, set by the government and an incompetent government at that, and this is known to cause operational distortions in policy and measurement.
People know what limits are and some choose to disregard them, the camera vans work as a deterent to stop people speeding and to punish those that continue to speed. Speed cameras are visible but don't stop people speeding for more than 100 yards or so. The thought that a camera van is around the next bend does slow people up.
I'm not endorsing this, just my observations.
I'm not endorsing this, just my observations.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff