Mobile speed camera placements
Discussion
This isn't a gripe - but has anybody noticed where they are putting mobile scamera units.
I blew past one a few weeks ago that was facing a junction. The junction he was facing is in a 40, yet he was in the 70 area. He also didn't have a clear shot at the 40 zone, so he was exclusively monitoring the 70 section - all 100 yards of it.
He was very visible, but placed in a position where he was going to catch absolutely no one.
Again today at Gatwick Airport, on the roundabout above the M23, theres a scamera van making sure no one breaks the 30 limit on the roundabout - yet you would be hard pressed to do more than 30 on the roundabout in the unlikely event that you hadn't actually seen a huge POLICE van.
So, it leads me to wonder if the Police are putting these units in daft places because they don't actually agree with the policy they are told to enforce.
I blew past one a few weeks ago that was facing a junction. The junction he was facing is in a 40, yet he was in the 70 area. He also didn't have a clear shot at the 40 zone, so he was exclusively monitoring the 70 section - all 100 yards of it.
He was very visible, but placed in a position where he was going to catch absolutely no one.
Again today at Gatwick Airport, on the roundabout above the M23, theres a scamera van making sure no one breaks the 30 limit on the roundabout - yet you would be hard pressed to do more than 30 on the roundabout in the unlikely event that you hadn't actually seen a huge POLICE van.
So, it leads me to wonder if the Police are putting these units in daft places because they don't actually agree with the policy they are told to enforce.
There was one on my way home on a wide NSL just around a bend - luckily there was some muppet in front doing 40mph so I escaped 
It didn’t detect the w*nker in front following the car that was holding up the show and was close enough to be towed… still speed is the major cause of accidents 
This whole speed issue has lost touch with reality and done so much damage to the image of law enforcement it’s untrue (IMHO).
It didn’t detect the w*nker in front following the car that was holding up the show and was close enough to be towed… still speed is the major cause of accidents This whole speed issue has lost touch with reality and done so much damage to the image of law enforcement it’s untrue (IMHO).
bluespanner said:
there was a copper doing this on our bypass a few weeks ago, and was unsportingly concealed behing a Lidl sign. so a few of us sixth formers erected a 'SPEED TRAP AHEAD' notice about 500 yards up the road.
Are you aware that, if you get caught, you'll lose your driving licence for that...?
mybrainhurts said:
there was a copper doing this on our bypass a few weeks ago, and was unsportingly concealed behing a Lidl sign. so a few of us sixth formers erected a 'SPEED TRAP AHEAD' notice about 500 yards up the road.
Are you aware that, if you get caught, you'll lose your driving licence for that...?
He ain't got one
m1spw said:
there was a copper doing this on our bypass a few weeks ago, and was unsportingly concealed behing a Lidl sign. so a few of us sixth formers erected a 'SPEED TRAP AHEAD' notice about 500 yards up the road.
Are you aware that, if you get caught, you'll lose your driving licence for that...?
He ain't got one
It matters not....he will still be on record as disqualified.
mybrainhurts said:
there was a copper doing this on our bypass a few weeks ago, and was unsportingly concealed behing a Lidl sign. so a few of us sixth formers erected a 'SPEED TRAP AHEAD' notice about 500 yards up the road.
Are you aware that, if you get caught, you'll lose your driving licence for that...?
He ain't got one
It matters not....he will still be on record as disqualified.
We'll just say it was you. Mr mybrainhurts, of no fixed address
How can you be disqualified from driving if you havn't driven anything though?
Actually, come to think of it, he has driven Defenders, on his little track...lucky rich bastard
bluespanner said:
so whats the name of the offence that is pointing out speed cameras?
It's covered by anti social behaviour stuff. They can cancel your driving licence for anything they deem anti social. This is, of course, open to abuse and should not have been entrusted to law enforcement officers.
A pensioner was banned from driving for holding such a sign a year or two ago. He was charged by one WPC Cash....
Referring to t'other question about being banned before holding a licence...I remember two reported cases where joyriders were dealt with that way. I believe the ban is recorded at DVLA.
to the sixth form I say.BliarOut said:
Oi, leave him alone, he's a modern day hero...
Quite agree...I want to make sure he doesn't get crucified by the gestapo.
I've spent many a contented half hour parked up and flashing oncoming traffic to warn about the rat in the van round the corner...
I fear I can't risk it again, though.
On one occasion, I was helping my son with his paper round and had a few minutes to wait for him. I was only about 20 yards from the talivan and there was very little traffic.
Gave a few quick flashes and everyone understood what was happening.....except the truck driver who stopped between me and the talivan, leaned out of the cab, and shouted Oi...what you feckin' flashin at?
Me...exit stage left at rapid rate of knots.
Some people you simply cannot help....
Don't forget that you now can't be done for warning other motorists unless they are actually speeding and then slow down as a result of your flash. 
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v GLENDINNING (2005)
DC (Scott Baker LJ, Owen J) 13/10/2005
CRIMINAL LAW - POLICE - ROAD TRAFFIC
OBSTRUCTION OF POLICE : SPEEDING : WARNING MOTORISTS OF SPEED TRAPS : WARNING DRIVERS : ACTUS REUS OF OFFENCE
Where an individual gave a warning to motorists of the presence of a police speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap for the individual to commit an offence of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty.
The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Crown court that the respondent (G) had no case to answer to a charge of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. Police constables had established a speed trap on a lay-by of a dual carriageway. The constables observed G making a slow-down signal with his hand to drivers behind him. G was subsequently convicted in the magistrates' court of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. G successfully appealed his conviction to the Crown court, which held that the video evidence showed that none of the drivers were travelling in excess of the speed limit and that they had not reacted to G's signals by slowing down. Accordingly the Crown court held that G had no case to answer. The issue was whether, for there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty by warning others of the presence of a speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.
HELD: The actus reus of the offence could only be established where the prosecuting authority proved that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap. On the facts of the instant case it was clear that there was no actual obstruction by G, Bastable v Little (1907) 1 KB 59, Betts v Stevens (1910) 1 KB 1, Green v Moore (1982) 126 SJ 79 considered.
Appeal dismissed.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v GLENDINNING (2005)
DC (Scott Baker LJ, Owen J) 13/10/2005
CRIMINAL LAW - POLICE - ROAD TRAFFIC
OBSTRUCTION OF POLICE : SPEEDING : WARNING MOTORISTS OF SPEED TRAPS : WARNING DRIVERS : ACTUS REUS OF OFFENCE
Where an individual gave a warning to motorists of the presence of a police speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap for the individual to commit an offence of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty.
The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Crown court that the respondent (G) had no case to answer to a charge of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. Police constables had established a speed trap on a lay-by of a dual carriageway. The constables observed G making a slow-down signal with his hand to drivers behind him. G was subsequently convicted in the magistrates' court of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. G successfully appealed his conviction to the Crown court, which held that the video evidence showed that none of the drivers were travelling in excess of the speed limit and that they had not reacted to G's signals by slowing down. Accordingly the Crown court held that G had no case to answer. The issue was whether, for there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty by warning others of the presence of a speed trap, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.
HELD: The actus reus of the offence could only be established where the prosecuting authority proved that those warned were either exceeding the legal speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap. On the facts of the instant case it was clear that there was no actual obstruction by G, Bastable v Little (1907) 1 KB 59, Betts v Stevens (1910) 1 KB 1, Green v Moore (1982) 126 SJ 79 considered.
Appeal dismissed.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff