Discussion
Just beeen told by a mate "We got a zapped on Saturday, 38 in a 30, the b*****ds. Had to brake to get down to that" Am I on my own in thinking it was not the plod in the wrong. My mate certainly thinks it was them. 30 is there for a reason, too many people think--I am a good driver, speed limits are there for all the other idiots. Whilst I don't agree with all the limits set on our roads, or the secret scamara vans, I do believe if you get caught then you put your hands up and live with it.
>> Edited by TOPTON on Thursday 13th October 15:36
>> Edited by TOPTON on Thursday 13th October 15:36
You believe that speed cameras are merely fundraisers? Fine. Then fight against them, on principle.
You believe that some speed limits are arbitrary and have no real merit? Fine. Exceed them, drive at the speed you think is appropriate, on principle.
Oh hang on. You got caught? Ah well, you know what to do - either
(a) fight against the whole "speed kills" mantra, put your case in court and refuse to pay any penalty for a "victimless crime", on principle; or
(b) pay the fine as a consequence of your decision to ignore the law (however stupid the law may be), on principle.
What not to do:
Decide the law is wrong, ignore it, and then bleat when you get nicked.
Sorry to be harsh, and I'm not preaching (or claiming) to stick within the speed limit all the time - I certainly don't - but that's the chance you take these days, I'm afraid...
You believe that some speed limits are arbitrary and have no real merit? Fine. Exceed them, drive at the speed you think is appropriate, on principle.
Oh hang on. You got caught? Ah well, you know what to do - either
(a) fight against the whole "speed kills" mantra, put your case in court and refuse to pay any penalty for a "victimless crime", on principle; or
(b) pay the fine as a consequence of your decision to ignore the law (however stupid the law may be), on principle.
What not to do:
Decide the law is wrong, ignore it, and then bleat when you get nicked.
Sorry to be harsh, and I'm not preaching (or claiming) to stick within the speed limit all the time - I certainly don't - but that's the chance you take these days, I'm afraid...
The basic "if you get caught put up & shut up" or "you do the crime you do the time" mentality would be valid for real crimes.
I do not condone exceeding a 30mph limit and would prefer a 20mph limit at busy times near schools, but is travelling 38mph in a 30mph limit considered a "real crime" by the majority of our supposedly democratic society? Surely the circumstances that a camera isn't programmed to use to make a decision, e.g. time of day, volume of traffic, road conditions etc. are very relevant here? These are the things that a police officer would use to reach a decision.
In my opinion exceeding the speed limit is an easily detectable breach of safety guidelines, which makes it a good way to raise money if a goverment is so inclined.
Road safety cannot be adequately enforced by cameras.
Road safety can be more than adequately enforced by the police, if enough of them are allowed to do it properly.
>> Edited by trev r on Thursday 13th October 15:41
I do not condone exceeding a 30mph limit and would prefer a 20mph limit at busy times near schools, but is travelling 38mph in a 30mph limit considered a "real crime" by the majority of our supposedly democratic society? Surely the circumstances that a camera isn't programmed to use to make a decision, e.g. time of day, volume of traffic, road conditions etc. are very relevant here? These are the things that a police officer would use to reach a decision.
In my opinion exceeding the speed limit is an easily detectable breach of safety guidelines, which makes it a good way to raise money if a goverment is so inclined.
Road safety cannot be adequately enforced by cameras.
Road safety can be more than adequately enforced by the police, if enough of them are allowed to do it properly.
>> Edited by trev r on Thursday 13th October 15:41
trev r said:
Surely the circumstances that a camera isn't programmed to use to make a decision, e.g. time of day, volume of traffic, road conditions etc. are very relevant here? These are the things that a police officer would use to reach a decision.
Yes they are. Agreed.
trev r said:
Road safety cannot be adequately enforced by cameras.
Road safety can be more than adequately enforced by the police, if enough of them are allowed to do it properly.
Agreed again.
But, nevertheless, a 30 limit is a 30 limit. If it's there for the wrong reasons, then argue that separately. If it's safe to go faster, argue that separately. If you're a better driver than the numpty's who don't deserve to be allowed to go over 30, anywhere, then argue that separately.
Everybody knows that cameras don't use discretion. It's a binary "yes/no" decision. If you know that (and who doesn't) and still speed, then you can't very well bleat when you get caught.
I am not being sanctimonious or hypocritical here (I hope) - I am not saying "you vill alvays stick to ze limit" - I don't. I have been a combination of careful and lucky so far though, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time...
If the camera measures speed accurately then yes, with the knowledge that is is an arbitary speed measurement device, exceeding the limit whilst being aware that one is in the vicinity of a camera would be foolhardy.
For me, the problems with acceptance of guilt arise when one discovers that the cameras are not exactly tamper proof, for example the time between flashes of the camera can be adjusted (www.notsoaccurate.com/Page%204.htm)
I also believe that a mobile van, hidden in the undergrowth of a 70mph limit dual carriageway, at 3am, is a very different kettle of fish to a fixed gatso outside a school entrance.
>> Edited by trev r on Thursday 13th October 17:23
For me, the problems with acceptance of guilt arise when one discovers that the cameras are not exactly tamper proof, for example the time between flashes of the camera can be adjusted (www.notsoaccurate.com/Page%204.htm)
I also believe that a mobile van, hidden in the undergrowth of a 70mph limit dual carriageway, at 3am, is a very different kettle of fish to a fixed gatso outside a school entrance.
>> Edited by trev r on Thursday 13th October 17:23
TOPTON said:
Just beeen told by a mate "We got a zapped on Saturday, 38 in a 30, the b*****ds. Had to brake to get down to that" Am I on my own in thinking it was not the plod in the wrong. My mate certainly thinks it was them. 30 is there for a reason, too many people think--I am a good driver, speed limits are there for all the other idiots. Whilst I don't agree with all the limits set on our roads, or the secret scamara vans, I do believe if you get caught then you put your hands up and live with it.
>> Edited by TOPTON on Thursday 13th October 15:36
Your abnsolutely right. Whilst many of us dont agree with the cameras, which do nothing to reduce speed, those caught may think twice next time and abide by the limit set, whether or not they agree with it. Was your mate blatently ignoring the limit, or just didnt see it, two different scenarios. Bottom line is he got caught, pay up and shut up.
Vipers said:
Just beeen told by a mate "We got a zapped on Saturday, 38 in a 30, the b*****ds. Had to brake to get down to that" Am I on my own in thinking it was not the plod in the wrong. My mate certainly thinks it was them. 30 is there for a reason, too many people think--I am a good driver, speed limits are there for all the other idiots. Whilst I don't agree with all the limits set on our roads, or the secret scamara vans, I do believe if you get caught then you put your hands up and live with it.
>> Edited by TOPTON on Thursday 13th October 15:36
Your abnsolutely right. Whilst many of us dont agree with the cameras, which do nothing to reduce speed, those caught may think twice next time and abide by the limit set, whether or not they agree with it. Was your mate blatently ignoring the limit, or just didnt see it, two different scenarios. Bottom line is he got caught, pay up and shut up.
I think you are both wrong. No government has ever had a mandate for even introducing a speed limit much less enforcing it. If 94% of those of voting age actually drive and 80% of them routinely break the speed limit then it is irrefutable fact that the speed limit is a bad law.(May as well have a law banning breathing) Clearly we have a very tiny minority of people imposing their idiocy on the vast majority. The speed limit was introduced originally at the behest of the horse transport lobby. It has no place in any sort of sensible society. The roads should be occupie by well trained drivers making judgements not looking at a plethora of roadsigns all giving them wrong information most of the time. As for the police having the right to enforce it, the sooner we elect local sherrifs the better. Who would you vote for? Someone who pledged to have police on the streets dealing with chavs or some strutting little prick like Brunstrom pledging to persecute middle aged motorists? Finally on the subject of pay up etc. If everyone challenged every speeding ticket in court the speed limit would be abandonned within a matter of weeks. Similarly if we smashed every speed camera and set fire to every talivan the initial outrage would be vitriolic but that woudl also bring an end to this anti motorist insanity.
tvrgit said:
What not to do:
Decide the law is wrong, ignore it, and then bleat when you get nicked.
If you were arrested and charged for not practising with your long bow for 2hrs every sunday which is still law in this country would you still be agreeing with your statement?
If not, what criteria do you apply to decide which laws you should accept the punishment and which you say "well that is just stupid"
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Friday 14th October 09:26
nonegreen said:
The roads should be occupied by well trained drivers making judgements not looking at a plethora of roadsigns all giving them wrong information most of the time. .
Sadly this is not the case. We have the agressive "I can drive as fast as I like" bunch, totally ignoring good road sense and sensibility. How many turkeys do we see pull out of the gap in between north and south dual carriageways, and try to speed up on the outside lane for example. Or am I to believe that every contributor to this site is the best driver in the world? from what I have been reading lately on here, the majority seem to belong to the "I'l do what I like on the roads" brigade.
So are you saying that the 30 mph limit should be abolished in towns, and let drivers make up their mind how fast they will drive? I cant believe I have read you correctly.
I think we all agree that motorway's should be raised, but dual carriageways which have junctions I feel are a different situation entirely, 70 I feel is sufficient for them?
Personally in 36 years of driving, I have never had a problem abiding by the set speed limits, I dont doodle, it it says 50, I will do 50, if its 70 I will do 70 (road conditions allowing of course).
I just cant understand why this speed thing is so emotive, the first person whose family members are involved in an accident due to some exceeding the speed limit will be the first to condem him, or will they applaud him, what ever!.....
How about a dual carriageway that was 60mph then reduced to 40mph because the council built houses near it and the residents decided the road was too noisey . . . scum. Don't buy a house near a road if you don't like the noise.
I give the Dax some serious work to do on that road, as often as I can . . .
I give the Dax some serious work to do on that road, as often as I can . . .
TOPTON said:
Just beeen told by a mate "We got a zapped on Saturday, 38 in a 30, the b*****ds. Had to brake to get down to that" Am I on my own in thinking it was not the plod in the wrong. My mate certainly thinks it was them. 30 is there for a reason, too many people think--I am a good driver, speed limits are there for all the other idiots. Whilst I don't agree with all the limits set on our roads, or the secret scamara vans, I do believe if you get caught then you put your hands up and live with it.
>> Edited by TOPTON on Thursday 13th October 15:36
Okay we'll put a 10mph limit on all the roads within 10 miles of you then .....
It depends. So many speed limits are stupidly reduced these days for no apparent reason other than to be scamera traps it's alarming.
trev r said:
The basic "if you get caught put up & shut up" or "you do the crime you do the time" mentality would be valid for real crimes.
I do not condone exceeding a 30mph limit and would prefer a 20mph limit at busy times near schools, but is travelling 38mph in a 30mph limit considered a "real crime" by the majority of our supposedly democratic society? Surely the circumstances that a camera isn't programmed to use to make a decision, e.g. time of day, volume of traffic, road conditions etc. are very relevant here? These are the things that a police officer would use to reach a decision.
In my opinion exceeding the speed limit is an easily detectable breach of safety guidelines, which makes it a good way to raise money if a goverment is so inclined.
Road safety cannot be adequately enforced by cameras.
Road safety can be more than adequately enforced by the police, if enough of them are allowed to do it properly.
>> Edited by trev r on Thursday 13th October 15:41
i might be wrong here, but it comes accross a bit, that if you get caught with a camera its a ripoff money making scam, but if you get caught by a traffic cop, its a gentlemanly way of doing things, and its a fair cop.
now i'm no saint on the road, but i agree with whats been written above, if you get caught speeding by a legal method , whats the point in whining on about how unjustified it seems, put your energy into changing the laws or speed limits.
>> Edited by eccles on Sunday 16th October 11:06
Anyone who gets caught by a fixed-site Gatso scamera in a 30mph zone probably deserves it.
Usually, they're big, they're brightly coloured and there's even little painted lines on the road to let you know they are there.
The reason that people get caught by them is that they are simply not paying enough attention to their driving.
Drivers who can't see and react in time to these bloody great road side appendages are hardly best qualified to determine what is a safe speed to travel in any given circumstances.
Usually, they're big, they're brightly coloured and there's even little painted lines on the road to let you know they are there.
The reason that people get caught by them is that they are simply not paying enough attention to their driving.
Drivers who can't see and react in time to these bloody great road side appendages are hardly best qualified to determine what is a safe speed to travel in any given circumstances.
The message implies your mate was zapped by a BiB rather than a scamera of some sort. He admits he had to brake to get down the 38 so he was clearly going fairly quick for 30 limit. The BiB had therefore reasonably formed the view that he was speeding and zapped him.
So no arguments abouts hidden vans of Gatso found bend or behind trees then.
The argument is merely whether the limit is valid/appropriate in that place and for those conditions.
So the options are: campaign in general about the issue (SafeSpeed will be glad of your contributions), OR don't pay, fight the case in court to publicise the issue (you WILL loose), OR pay up and grin and bear it (even if you are not happy). The BiB in this case was obviously doing his job properly in the context of a legal limit and current law.
Prof Beard
So no arguments abouts hidden vans of Gatso found bend or behind trees then.
The argument is merely whether the limit is valid/appropriate in that place and for those conditions.
So the options are: campaign in general about the issue (SafeSpeed will be glad of your contributions), OR don't pay, fight the case in court to publicise the issue (you WILL loose), OR pay up and grin and bear it (even if you are not happy). The BiB in this case was obviously doing his job properly in the context of a legal limit and current law.
Prof Beard
bluepolarbear said:
If you were arrested and charged for not practising with your long bow for 2hrs every sunday which is still law in this country would you still be agreeing with your statement?
If not, what criteria do you apply to decide which laws you should accept the punishment and which you say "well that is just stupid"
Martin Luther King Jr said:Look at who's getting caught by scameras and gatsos, basically decent law-abiding people who;ve driven on a dual carriageway at 70mph safely for years then find there's a scamvan the day after the limit's dropped to 50 for no safety related reason. If you look at most limit reduction procedures you'll see that the police oppose them as unnecessary and difficult to enforce. The latter point isn't so valid as the pratnerships get richer and enforcement replaces education adn engineering almost completely, the 3Es are becoming 1E and it's due to £taxgreed.
Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws
This is a sorry state of affairs as the law and safety have parted company so its validity in the eyes of the public has disappeared, public support for automated enforcement has fallen through the floor of late. Canadian states ditched it because it had no safety benefit, but plenty of negative consequences.
The statement often heard from police braid - typically political animals not the front line trafpol BiB on PH who seem to have a decent dose of common - that speeding is a major cause of road accidents, are contradicted by their own kind.
Durham Chief Constable Paul Garvin said:That looks like a decent statistical sample size to me. CC Garvin has also gone on record saying there's not a single location on his patch that would justify a camera.
Exceeding the speed limit related to just 60 collisions per year out of a total of 1,900 collisions in the Durham area — that’s about 3%
Nobody can say whether this driver was safe or unsafe unless they were there, that's why we need many more traffic police on patrol to catch dangerous drivers operating below the speed limit as well as above it, and also so they can exercise discretion when a car built for the job is veing driven safely by a person with a safe driving style that happens to include safe progress.
Prof Beard said:Yes if so, agreed, but it would be even more secure with a 'follow' first, so lots of highly trained trafpol on patrol please not hedghehoppers
The message implies your mate was zapped by a BiB rather than a scamera of some sort. He admits he had to brake to get down the 38 so he was clearly going fairly quick for 30 limit. The BiB had therefore reasonably formed the view that he was speeding and zapped him.
So no arguments abouts hidden vans of Gatso found bend or behind trees then.
Prof Beard said:Agreed again. We should put speed limit decisions in the hands of people like Lambo Cop, Hollywood Wheels, IaHa, john57, DVD, Silverback Mike and co, too many to list all the decent PH BiB, who I would guarantee would make a better job of it. Speed limits are now in the hands of politically correct councillors engaging in 'how low can you go' and 'snail pace is plenty' muppetry. I won't even mention the DfT and politicians, the current lot are beyond help.
The argument is merely whether the limit is valid/appropriate in that place and for those conditions.
Prof Beard
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 16th October 23:47
Vipers said:
The roads should be occupied by well trained drivers making judgements not looking at a plethora of roadsigns all giving them wrong information most of the time. .
Sadly this is not the case. We have the agressive "I can drive as fast as I like" bunch, totally ignoring good road sense and sensibility. How many turkeys do we see pull out of the gap in between north and south dual carriageways, and try to speed up on the outside lane for example. Or am I to believe that every contributor to this site is the best driver in the world? from what I have been reading lately on here, the majority seem to belong to the "I'l do what I like on the roads" brigade.
So are you saying that the 30 mph limit should be abolished in towns, and let drivers make up their mind how fast they will drive? I cant believe I have read you correctly.
I think we all agree that motorway's should be raised, but dual carriageways which have junctions I feel are a different situation entirely, 70 I feel is sufficient for them?
Personally in 36 years of driving, I have never had a problem abiding by the set speed limits, I dont doodle, it it says 50, I will do 50, if its 70 I will do 70 (road conditions allowing of course).
I just cant understand why this speed thing is so emotive, the first person whose family members are involved in an accident due to some exceeding the speed limit will be the first to condem him, or will they applaud him, what ever!.....
What I am saying is that the reason you have drivers who drive furiously and perform all the ludicrous manouvres that you have seen is precisely because we have not just speed limits but all the road furniture as well. Driving on a road is dangerous, it carries certain risks. As soon as you introduce speed limits traffic lights, speed humps, cameras, matrix signs and all the other paraphinalia that keeps hundreds of local authority employees busy in maintenance tasks you create a false sense of safety. It is a question of approach. Take the example of the powerpress. In the UK there are a set of rules about what guards must be fitted to make it absolutely impossible to get a human body part anywhere near the pressing mechanism and a load of prescriptive drivel about how people who change press tools must be trained. In Japan they have no such rules or guards, however if you own a company and your people die cos you failed to train them properly then they lock you up and throw away the key. There are about the same number of accidents with power presses annually.
From that example, bear in mind that we now are actually increasing the death toll from road related injuries by the so called safety measures we introduce. The real figures for road deaths are masked by removing some of them from the picture, but my best guess is that if you include the lung cancers caused by speed humps and the direct deaths attributed to speed humps through emergency services not making it to hospital then about 7500 people die as a result of road issues. This means that all the legislation from the 1950s onward has made absolutely no difference at all to road deaths. I honestly and firmly believe that a bit of fear is a good thing when it comes to using the roads. If the irresponsible parents were prosecuted when the toddler runs out in the road and is killed and we removed most of the traffic lights in urban environments this would go a long way to reducing accidents. It might also help if those with intellects in the 20th percentile or less were not automatically given the right to drive. In addition a full understanding of newtons laws of motion should perhaps be a prerequisite for getting a license.
I am in no way advocating free for all I just believe we have gone badly wrong in creating a road network which fails because it allows things that move at high speed to mix with people that move at 3 mph. This could mostly be eliminated by design without the use of stupid speed humps.
nonegreen said:
I honestly and firmly believe that a bit of fear is a good thing when it comes to using the roads. If the irresponsible parents were prosecuted when the toddler runs out in the road and is killed and we removed most of the traffic lights in urban environments this would go a long way to reducing accidents. It might also help if those with intellects in the 20th percentile or less were not automatically given the right to drive. In addition a full understanding of newtons laws of motion should perhaps be a prerequisite for getting a license.
I am in no way advocating free for all I just believe we have gone badly wrong in creating a road network which fails because it allows things that move at high speed to mix with people that move at 3 mph. This could mostly be eliminated by design without the use of stupid speed humps.
I share some of your sentiments nonegreen. Here's a letter I wrote to the local rag about 12 months ago, FYI Professor John Whitelegg is leader of the Northwest Green Party and as an outspoken member of the anti-car lobby is one of their regular correspondents.
"I must take issue with John Whitelegg’s anti-car rant. (Letters 18th October)
He wishes us to believe that in every accident, the driver is always to blame for the death or injury of any pedestrian or cyclist involved. We all know that’s untrue.
Unlike the car, a bicycle requires no certificate of roadworthiness, nor does the rider require any certificate of competence to operate it safely. Unlike the motorist, who is obliged by law to minimise his risk of injury by wearing a seatbelt, the cyclist has no obligation to take any precautions for his own safety and could, should they chose, ride wearing only their underwear.
We have spent millions in this country constructing cycle paths and lanes to safeguard the cyclist. We should do more to protect them. Compulsory crash helmet wearing for cyclists should now be introduced. This measure would instantly reduce fatalities.
John Whitelegg said “when a car driving at 30mph kills 9 out of 20 people that it hits and at 40mph it kills 17 out of 20 we have a massive problem with speeding cars”
No we don’t. We have a massive problem with people in the road. Those 20 people should be safely on the pavement or one of our many pedestrian crossings, not attempting suicide on the Queens Highway.
Pedestrians are lemmings - hundreds of them walk or run to their deaths in front of moving vehicles every year. Hardly surprising – the training most often witnessed is that of young children, being gripped by the wrist by harassed parents and forcibly dragged across the road in front of approaching traffic.
As basic road safety education has apparently been abandoned, the offence of jay walking should now be introduced. Fines raised could fund further pedestrian safety improvements. "
IIRC the eminent(sp) Professor chose not to pen any reply.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff