9 points in 30 mins from same camera
Discussion
www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004112014,00.html
A WOMAN who held a clean driving licence for 40 years was nabbed three times for speeding in HALF AN HOUR.
Joyce Brown, 77, had never broken a traffic law since she passed her test in 1964.
But she collected nine points on her licence after being repeatedly snapped by a camera on the same stretch of road. Joyce was driving from her home in Sunderland to walk one of her dogs in a nearby park when she passed an “unmarked” mobile speed trap.
She was clocked doing 39mph in a 30mph zone.
After a quick walk, she returned home to pick up her other dog and was flashed again at 40mph.
Driving back to the park, she was nicked a third time doing 41mph. It cost her £180 in fines.
She never saw the camera and had no idea she had been caught. Three more penalty points would mean a driving ban.
Yesterday the furious widow, who has written an angry letter to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, said: “The use of speed cameras like this is a lucrative sport.
“Now I’m driving around like I’m on eggshells.”
The Association of British Drivers said: “This is nothing short of ridiculous.”
A WOMAN who held a clean driving licence for 40 years was nabbed three times for speeding in HALF AN HOUR.
Joyce Brown, 77, had never broken a traffic law since she passed her test in 1964.
But she collected nine points on her licence after being repeatedly snapped by a camera on the same stretch of road. Joyce was driving from her home in Sunderland to walk one of her dogs in a nearby park when she passed an “unmarked” mobile speed trap.
She was clocked doing 39mph in a 30mph zone.
After a quick walk, she returned home to pick up her other dog and was flashed again at 40mph.
Driving back to the park, she was nicked a third time doing 41mph. It cost her £180 in fines.
She never saw the camera and had no idea she had been caught. Three more penalty points would mean a driving ban.
Yesterday the furious widow, who has written an angry letter to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, said: “The use of speed cameras like this is a lucrative sport.
“Now I’m driving around like I’m on eggshells.”
The Association of British Drivers said: “This is nothing short of ridiculous.”
-gain, a situation where a real live trafpol would either have nicked her once or more likely cautioned her and then she'd have driven more slowly for the rest of the day, which presumably is what "they" want. puggit said:Sorry but bollocks. I bet she has been speeding every day since then.
Joyce Brown, 77, had never broken a traffic law since she passed her test in 1964.
puggit said:Well she's not very observant then is she. More training required me thinks (or a visit to the optician).
But she collected nine points on her licence after being repeatedly snapped by a camera on the same stretch of road.
She never saw the camera and had no idea she had been caught.
puggit said:I agree but writing to Alistair Dickhead won't change anything - after all she was dangerously speeding at an average of 10mph over a 30 limit.
Yesterday the furious widow, who has written an angry letter to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, said: ?The use of speed cameras like this is a lucrative sport.
?Now I?m driving around like I?m on eggshells.?
The Association of British Drivers said: ?This is nothing short of ridiculous.?
The whole situation is stupid but I have to say she's a dozy cow to have driven past it atleast 5 times and not seen it.
Icamm, I agree with what you're saying, but stories like this make my blood boil. If the "safety camera partnerships" really thought that it would be safer for all concerned if she dropped her speed, why not simply pull her over and point this out? Job done, dozy bint goes on her way more "safely".
But no, they send her 3 lots of speed tax and let her carry on her merry "unsafe" ways until the winning tickets arrive in the post at some distant (well, within 14 days) point in the future...
But no, they send her 3 lots of speed tax and let her carry on her merry "unsafe" ways until the winning tickets arrive in the post at some distant (well, within 14 days) point in the future...
icamm said:
Joyce Brown, 77, had never broken a traffic law since she passed her test in 1964.
Sorry but bollocks. I bet she has been speeding every day since then.
But surely if she has been speeding she MUST have had an accident and killed people, After all "Speed Kills" doesn't it especially after 40 years? Or is it a big FAT LIE thus proving speedig in itself cannot be looked at in isolation?
icamm said:
She never saw the camera and had no idea she had been caught.
Well she's not very observant then is she. More training required me thinks (or a visit to the optician).
Or the camera was hidden?
icamm said:
Yesterday the furious widow, who has written an angry letter to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, said: ?The use of speed cameras like this is a lucrative sport.
?Now I?m driving around like I?m on eggshells.?
The Association of British Drivers said: ?This is nothing short of ridiculous.?
I agree but writing to Alistair Dickhead won't change anything - after all she was dangerously speeding at an average of 10mph over a 30 limit.
The whole situation is stupid but I have to say she's a dozy cow to have driven past it atleast 5 times and not seen it.
Or she has been the victim of needless and pointless automatic law enforcement by machine.
I agree with all the above, the cameras didn't stop her slowing, a plod would. but you have to note that she cleary does 40mph regulary through a 30mph so the line:
is a lie. she has broken traffic law constantly, its just she has finally been caught.
NB I don't agree with the cameras!! a test 1964 and no further training since? a danger to the public
Hello? RE-TESTING!!!
old_dear said:
Joyce Brown, 77, had never broken a traffic law since she passed her test in 1964.
is a lie. she has broken traffic law constantly, its just she has finally been caught.
NB I don't agree with the cameras!! a test 1964 and no further training since? a danger to the public
Hello? RE-TESTING!!!
Come on guys. I'm sure you know my view on cameras is the same as yours by now. I was just pointing out how easily the story is discredited.
It makes my blood boil that this sort of thing should happen. I bet the camera operator couldn't believe their luck the second time - never mind the third.
It makes my blood boil that this sort of thing should happen. I bet the camera operator couldn't believe their luck the second time - never mind the third.
There was a woman in Bristol last year who got 2 lots of points within 60 seconds from the same scamera - once on the approach to a roundabout and again on the way back the way she'd come. I honestly can't see how the camera operator managed to get away with it... it had to have been deliberate! 
Why should this women need re-training? Because her dangerous driving has caused an accident, or because she was caught exceeding an arbitrary speed limit and hence deemed to be a criminal. She was driving consistently at or around 40mph, and presumably considered this to be a safe speed for the circumstances. Her judgement could be considered justified as she was not apparently involved in any accidents. The judgement of the enforcement agency was that her crime justified 3 sets of 3 penalty points and associated fines.
Also, I am very aware of the danger posed to my license by innocent looking white vans parked in laybys. She may not have been aware of the purpose of such vans, most people are not. As such vans do not necessarily represent a road safety hazard it is somewhat harsh to criticise her competence for not realising the significance of the van and reacting accordingly.
I am sure that most drivers exceed a speed limit several times in the course of an average journey, there but for the grace of god...
Also, I am very aware of the danger posed to my license by innocent looking white vans parked in laybys. She may not have been aware of the purpose of such vans, most people are not. As such vans do not necessarily represent a road safety hazard it is somewhat harsh to criticise her competence for not realising the significance of the van and reacting accordingly.
I am sure that most drivers exceed a speed limit several times in the course of an average journey, there but for the grace of god...
“Now I’m driving around like I’m on eggshells.”
does that mean shell be driving around with her eyes open looking for hazards like she presumably has been for all her motoring life? no. now shell spend the rest of her years driving a 25 mph roadblock while staring at her speedo. safety my arse.
does that mean shell be driving around with her eyes open looking for hazards like she presumably has been for all her motoring life? no. now shell spend the rest of her years driving a 25 mph roadblock while staring at her speedo. safety my arse.
david_s said:
Why should this women need re-training? Because her dangerous driving has caused an accident, or because she was caught exceeding an arbitrary speed limit and hence deemed to be a criminal. She was driving consistently at or around 40mph, and presumably considered this to be a safe speed for the circumstances. Her judgement could be considered justified as she was not apparently involved in any accidents. The judgement of the enforcement agency was that her crime justified 3 sets of 3 penalty points and associated fines.
Also, I am very aware of the danger posed to my license by innocent looking white vans parked in laybys. She may not have been aware of the purpose of such vans, most people are not. As such vans do not necessarily represent a road safety hazard it is somewhat harsh to criticise her competence for not realising the significance of the van and reacting accordingly.
I am sure that most drivers exceed a speed limit several times in the course of an average journey, there but for the grace of god...
Because she must have driven past a speed trap atleast 5, yes five (count the journey past it to get 3 tickets - yes 5) times and didn't spot it. I would hazard a guess that this is because she is driving along blithely unaware of most of what's around her (like most people who consistantly do 40 in 30 zones - ie most drivers).
Just like you didn't spot the irony in my comments.
>> Edited by icamm on Thursday 11th March 17:09
[quote=icamm]
Because she must have driven past a speed trap atleast 5, yes five (count the journey past it to get 3 tickets - yes 5) times and didn't spot it. I would hazard a guess that this is because she is driving along blithely unaware of most of what's around her (like most people who consistantly do 40 in 30 zones - ie most drivers).
Just like you didn't spot the irony in my comments.
[quote=icamm]
My comment wasn't particularly aimed at you, but do you not think that she may have spotted the speed trap but not recognised it for what it was? I have pointed out talivans to several drivers who have not realised what they are. It makes perfect sense to adjust your driving in accordance with perceived danger, but a parked up van does not necessarily represent a danger to an unaware motorist.
Because she must have driven past a speed trap atleast 5, yes five (count the journey past it to get 3 tickets - yes 5) times and didn't spot it. I would hazard a guess that this is because she is driving along blithely unaware of most of what's around her (like most people who consistantly do 40 in 30 zones - ie most drivers).
Just like you didn't spot the irony in my comments.
[quote=icamm]
My comment wasn't particularly aimed at you, but do you not think that she may have spotted the speed trap but not recognised it for what it was? I have pointed out talivans to several drivers who have not realised what they are. It makes perfect sense to adjust your driving in accordance with perceived danger, but a parked up van does not necessarily represent a danger to an unaware motorist.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff