Mobile camera vans

[Shore]

Was driving down the motorway the other day overtaking a truck in the fast lane. Just as I finished overtaking I spotted a mobile camera van sitting on the hard shoulder with the rear windows open. I looked down at my speedo and I was doing 74.

I think I know the answer already but will I get done for speeding ?

[MissChief]

Doubtful. It's likely you weren't doing more than 70 if your Speedo said 74.

I'd imagine the threshold for M'way driving is high 70's maybe even early 80's.

[Shore]

MissChief said:

Doubtful. It's likely you weren't doing more than 70 if your Speedo said 74.

I'd imagine the threshold for M'way driving is high 70's maybe even early 80's.

Thanks yea I just wondering if the 10% rule applied to these vans which I'm sure it probably does (I hope).

[Elroy Blue]

You should get a ticket for calling lane 3 the 'fast lane' though

[littleredrooster]

I've never seen a camera van on the hard shoulder. Where was this?

[anonymous-user]

OP probably means the dedicated 'humps' used by marked cars and camera vans on the nearside.

[CaptainSlow]

OP needs to get out the fast lane if only doing 74.

[littleredrooster]

janesmith1950 said:

OP probably means the dedicated 'humps' used by marked cars and camera vans on the nearside.

Come to think of it, I've never seen one on one of those 'humps' either. VOSA (DVSA or whatever their latest moniker is...) I have seen, but not camera vans.

[Riley Blue]

What was a truck doing in the 'fast lane'? Hey-ho, back to the Spa 24hrs...

[4rephill]

Riley Blue said:

What was a truck doing in the 'fast lane'? Hey-ho, back to the Spa 24hrs...

And if the truck was in the "fast lane", how the Hell was he overtaking it? - Two wheels up on the centre reservation?

[anonymous-user]

littleredrooster said:

Come to think of it, I've never seen one on one of those 'humps' either. VOSA (DVSA or whatever their latest moniker is...) I have seen, but not camera vans.

Seen plenty. M74 and M180 regularly being two examples.

[frankenstein12]

I would say it also depends where and therefore which police force were operating the scam van as a lot of forces mostly use them on motorways and dual carriageways and set the threshold very low to push up their numbers.

[Tablecloth]

frankenstein12 said:

I would say it also depends where and therefore which police force were operating the scam van as a lot of forces mostly use them on motorways and dual carriageways and set the threshold very low to push up their numbers.

Oh really! How do you know that?

[jm doc]

Tablecloth said:

frankenstein12 said:

I would say it also depends where and therefore which police force were operating the scam van as a lot of forces mostly use them on motorways and dual carriageways and set the threshold very low to push up their numbers.

Oh really! How do you know that?

Perhaps you should tell us why you seem to know that they don't??

[frankenstein12]

Tablecloth said:

frankenstein12 said:

I would say it also depends where and therefore which police force were operating the scam van as a lot of forces mostly use them on motorways and dual carriageways and set the threshold very low to push up their numbers.

Oh really! How do you know that?

I do 40-50000 miles a year all over the country on motorways, dual carriageways and city streets at all times of the day and night and have done for over 12 years and I rarely ever see the scammers parked in city areas whereas I very often see them parked up over on the side of motorways and dual carriageways especially in certain forces areas like Sussex and Essex.

The ONLY justification for mobile scam vans is in areas where there could be pedestrians or vulnerable road users so 40mph and less speed limit areas mostly.

[vonhosen]

frankenstein12 said:

Tablecloth said:

frankenstein12 said:

I would say it also depends where and therefore which police force were operating the scam van as a lot of forces mostly use them on motorways and dual carriageways and set the threshold very low to push up their numbers.

Oh really! How do you know that?

I do 40-50000 miles a year all over the country on motorways, dual carriageways and city streets at all times of the day and night and have done for over 12 years and I rarely ever see the scammers parked in city areas whereas I very often see them parked up over on the side of motorways and dual carriageways especially in certain forces areas like Sussex and Essex.

The ONLY justification for mobile scam vans is in areas where there could be pedestrians or vulnerable road users so 40mph and less speed limit areas mostly.

To be fair that's your ONLY justification for them, a justification that is based on the lens (coloured by your beliefs & prejudices) that you look at the issue through. Other people who look at them through a different lens (coloured by their beliefs & prejudices) see & accept other justifications for them.

[HantsRat]

frankenstein12 said:

The ONLY justification for mobile scam vans is in areas where there could be pedestrians or vulnerable road users so 40mph and less speed limit areas mostly.

Well no that's not the only justification, the other justification is to use them to enforce speeding road traffic law. That's also the job of the police whether you agree with it or not.

In the UK the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph. Stick to that and you'll be fine

[jm doc]

HantsRat said:

frankenstein12 said:

The ONLY justification for mobile scam vans is in areas where there could be pedestrians or vulnerable road users so 40mph and less speed limit areas mostly.

Well no that's not the only justification, the other justification is to use them to enforce speeding road traffic law. That's also the job of the police whether you agree with it or not.

In the UK the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph. Stick to that and you'll be fine

Just about the safest roads in the world. Politicians promised no cameras on them.
Now the highest concentration of cameras in the world.

I wonder why?

Kerrching!

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

Politicians promised no cameras on them.

They did?
You got a binding source for the (or any prior) government of that?

jm doc said:

Now the highest concentration of cameras in the world.

Our motorways have the highest concentration of cameras for any roads in the world?
Again have you got a source for that?

[frankenstein12]

HantsRat said:

frankenstein12 said:

The ONLY justification for mobile scam vans is in areas where there could be pedestrians or vulnerable road users so 40mph and less speed limit areas mostly.

Well no that's not the only justification, the other justification is to use them to enforce speeding road traffic law. That's also the job of the police whether you agree with it or not.

In the UK the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph. Stick to that and you'll be fine

Well Hantsrat thanks for the advice but I will continue to exceed the motorway speed limit as and where safe to do so as I have done for well over half a million miles.

If you or any of your colleagues ever managed to catch me speeding and pulled me over and gave me a ticket I would accept that as a risk of safe driving in this country. If you or one of your colleagues could justifiably explain why my speed was unsafe at that point in time I would "happily" accept my wrongdoing and a ticket if fothcoming.

If however my speed was safe for the conditions but outside your acceptable leeway area then I would prefer you simply gave me a ticket and spare me any pontificating or lecture as I am not interested. I prefer to learn from my mistakes than be given a lecture based on nonsense.

So far I have received no speeding tickets because I am a decent/aware driver and I know which forces/areas are anti car and focus primarily on speed on their local roads networks so also know where they tend to site their cameras and I tend to mind my speed a little bit more in those areas.

Frankly evidence shows speed enforcement causes accidents on motorways and freeways contrary to what the police/brake and so forth wish to claim.

I have had no accidents etc PRIMARILY because i treat motorway speed limits as irrelevant. To me I would rather drive to condition than to an unsafe arbitrary number which leads me to spend more time looking at my speedometer and daydreaming than focusing on the area around me.

Research and evidence has repeatedly shown that when people are told that an arbitrary number is safe they consider any driving beneath that number to be safe. That is simply not the case.

Isle of Sheppey bridge car pileup in 2013 was a very prime example of that. People interviewed by the press at the time who were involved saying things like "There should have been a sign warning us to slow down becuase it was foggy" "I was doing about around 65mph and could not see very far and then suddenly there were just cars in front of me and I could not stop in time"