Old people with speed guns
Discussion
I have no problem with them at all, in fact, I think it is quite a good thing to do "for the community". I've seen the loads out and about, but never had a letter from them as I generally don't drive like a tool in towns and villages.
If I did get one, I would be grateful it was from Speedwatch not plod!
The only people I can ever envisage complaining or moaning about such initiatives would be people who speed through villages and towns! I cant imaging any other reason to be concerned about them in the slightest.
If I did get one, I would be grateful it was from Speedwatch not plod!
The only people I can ever envisage complaining or moaning about such initiatives would be people who speed through villages and towns! I cant imaging any other reason to be concerned about them in the slightest.
davebem said:
Im fine with people doing this, in appropriate places, its a bit like neighbourhood watch. However recently I was passing through a local village (between Hinckley and Nuneaton) and one of these 'old people' in a fluorescent jacket with the speed gun crossed the road without looking as I was approaching.
Which village please? I live in this neck of the woods so it would be good to know where to be extra careful of people crossing roads without looking poo at Paul's said:
I have no problem with them at all, in fact, I think it is quite a good thing to do "for the community". I've seen the loads out and about, but never had a letter from them as I generally don't drive like a tool in towns and villages.
If I did get one, I would be grateful it was from Speedwatch not plod!
The only people I can ever envisage complaining or moaning about such initiatives would be people who speed through villages and towns! I cant imaging any other reason to be concerned about them in the slightest.
If someone is driving like a tool I'd rather they get a letter from the police than Speedwatch.If I did get one, I would be grateful it was from Speedwatch not plod!
The only people I can ever envisage complaining or moaning about such initiatives would be people who speed through villages and towns! I cant imaging any other reason to be concerned about them in the slightest.
SCEtoAUX said:
No it isn't. It's a scheme for a bunch of "holier than though" retirees with nothing better to do than create division between them and motorists.
A week of observing traffic on the "main" road through my village observing cretins in R-Line diesel Golfs and those that couldn't quite stretch to the Golf driving their Leon flat out (60+) in a 30 would have you change your mind.The people I speak of above would be best served with someone pointing a sniper rifle at their head and pulling the trigger. Community Speedwatch isn't great, but it's there because knobs (given your tact, probably like you) drive their s
t cars flat out through areas that they deem to be inappropriately restricted because their weeks of driving experience tells them they could manage at least 90 round the bend ahead.ST2 said:
Is there a rule that speedwatch operatives must stand by the roadside rather than sit in cars?
There is in Essex - this is their operating manual. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/524664/resp...The organiser of the group who've just been given access to a Trucam and will be able to issue tickets is a somewhat sanctimonious retired police officer.
He doesn't take kindly to any criticism of the way he operates - at least one village in the area has dropped out of his scheme and are running their own.
Dr Jekyll said:
poo at Paul's said:
I have no problem with them at all, in fact, I think it is quite a good thing to do "for the community". I've seen the loads out and about, but never had a letter from them as I generally don't drive like a tool in towns and villages.
If I did get one, I would be grateful it was from Speedwatch not plod!
The only people I can ever envisage complaining or moaning about such initiatives would be people who speed through villages and towns! I cant imaging any other reason to be concerned about them in the slightest.
If someone is driving like a tool I'd rather they get a letter from the police than Speedwatch.If I did get one, I would be grateful it was from Speedwatch not plod!
The only people I can ever envisage complaining or moaning about such initiatives would be people who speed through villages and towns! I cant imaging any other reason to be concerned about them in the slightest.
https://twitter.com/DerbyshireRPU/status/112186904...
This still makes me laugh.
The residents wanted the police to come and do speed checks in the area, yet it was some of the locals that were getting caught out.
We're not ALL that dim in Derbyshire.
This still makes me laugh.
The residents wanted the police to come and do speed checks in the area, yet it was some of the locals that were getting caught out.
We're not ALL that dim in Derbyshire.
LosingGrip said:
I don't get why so many people are against them. They only want to keep their roads safe.
...
It's because in most situations, the hysteria which is whipped up about 'speeding kills' and 'keeping their roads' safe is just nonsense. We already have the provision for the authorities to take action if there is a genuine problem or there is an actual history of dangerous driving or accidents caused by speeding, we simply don't need such official / unofficial intervention. ...
That these villages don't already have a fixed speed camera or a heavier official Speed Camera Partnership presence suggests there isn't really a risk and that this is nothing more than busybodies creating conflict and tittle-tattle.
LosingGrip said:
Would people prefer to get a speeding ticket with points instead?
And yes, if there is a genuine speeding incident I would prefer the offenders get prosecuted in the correct way using the correct legal procedures.Pegscratch said:
A week of observing traffic on the "main" road through my village observing cretins in R-Line diesel Golfs and those that couldn't quite stretch to the Golf driving their Leon flat out (60+) in a 30 would have you change your mind.
The people I speak of above would be best served with someone pointing a sniper rifle at their head and pulling the trigger. Community Speedwatch isn't great, but it's there because knobs (given your tact, probably like you) drive their st cars flat out through areas that they deem to be inappropriately restricted because their weeks of driving experience tells them they could manage at least 90 round the bend ahead.
Absolutely agree. In our village in addition to the Golf R's, we seem to have a few quite rapid BMW's with either pop and bang maps or very loud exhausts. I'm all for the use of speed in appropriate places, but some of them are doing 70/80+ by the time they get past our house. There are a couple of blind junctions too and it is only a matter of time before someone pulls out on one them and there is an almighty crash.The people I speak of above would be best served with someone pointing a sniper rifle at their head and pulling the trigger. Community Speedwatch isn't great, but it's there because knobs (given your tact, probably like you) drive their s
t cars flat out through areas that they deem to be inappropriately restricted because their weeks of driving experience tells them they could manage at least 90 round the bend ahead.The Surveyor said:
LosingGrip said:
I don't get why so many people are against them. They only want to keep their roads safe.
...
It's because in most situations, the hysteria which is whipped up about 'speeding kills' and 'keeping their roads' safe is just nonsense. We already have the provision for the authorities to take action if there is a genuine problem or there is an actual history of dangerous driving or accidents caused by speeding, we simply don't need such official / unofficial intervention. ...
That these villages don't already have a fixed speed camera or a heavier official Speed Camera Partnership presence suggests there isn't really a risk and that this is nothing more than busybodies creating conflict and tittle-tattle.
LosingGrip said:
Would people prefer to get a speeding ticket with points instead?
And yes, if there is a genuine speeding incident I would prefer the offenders get prosecuted in the correct way using the correct legal procedures.There's also the matter that criteria for speed calming measures - be they road furniture or cameras - seem somewhat strange. A recent traffic survey of two roads in our village (using the sensors laid across the road over a 7 day period) showed that only 44% complied with the 40 limit and speeds up to 80mph were recorded.
Yet that's deemed "substantial compliance" and no need for any enforcement activities, let alone cameras.
In response to the Surveyor
That all seems sensible but your post is not reflective of the reality of the situation however.
My village, for instance, had a spate of cars ending upside down after racing through the village and then somehow mounting the verge. Verges were chewed up on a hill as HGVs came flying down and could not slow down in time to safely pass other HGVs and so crossed the pavement chewing up the verge on the other side of the pavement ( not the road side) They’d have killed anybody on the pavement.
Local authority not interested at all. Unless someone is killed on a road they tend to ignore it.
It does surprise me that in this day and age one can be aware of the risks and turn a blind eye until there is a fatality.
So the local authority’s approach is there isn’t a problem as no one is dead yet but if you want to take it further you HAVE to set up a community speed watch before we take any notice. The ridiculous thing is that part of the speedwatch guidance used to require warning signs being placed on all the entrances to the roads when speedwatch was on - hence very few people getting “caught”.
I have no problem with speedwatch groups as they are doing their best to tackle a problem that local authorities ignore. The speed watch results are also used in determining where to place camera vans.
That all seems sensible but your post is not reflective of the reality of the situation however.
My village, for instance, had a spate of cars ending upside down after racing through the village and then somehow mounting the verge. Verges were chewed up on a hill as HGVs came flying down and could not slow down in time to safely pass other HGVs and so crossed the pavement chewing up the verge on the other side of the pavement ( not the road side) They’d have killed anybody on the pavement.
Local authority not interested at all. Unless someone is killed on a road they tend to ignore it.
It does surprise me that in this day and age one can be aware of the risks and turn a blind eye until there is a fatality.
So the local authority’s approach is there isn’t a problem as no one is dead yet but if you want to take it further you HAVE to set up a community speed watch before we take any notice. The ridiculous thing is that part of the speedwatch guidance used to require warning signs being placed on all the entrances to the roads when speedwatch was on - hence very few people getting “caught”.
I have no problem with speedwatch groups as they are doing their best to tackle a problem that local authorities ignore. The speed watch results are also used in determining where to place camera vans.
The sequence is
- Idiots speed through towns and villages
- Residents complain
- Police ignore them
- Residents complain more
- Residents given speed measuring device and clipboard
- Residents record people speeding
- Idiots get letters and ignore them
- Sooner or later it is a policeman holding the gun and idiots get tickets.
I tend to drive with cruise on 33 in 30 limits. One morning I was overtaken one morning by my neighbour's wife who was in a hurry. In the next 10 miles having slowed down for the speed cameras she gained one car's length and had held me up . . . so yes it is the locals that get caught.
The simple way is to remember the old guidelines and not to exceed them.
- Idiots speed through towns and villages
- Residents complain
- Police ignore them
- Residents complain more
- Residents given speed measuring device and clipboard
- Residents record people speeding
- Idiots get letters and ignore them
- Sooner or later it is a policeman holding the gun and idiots get tickets.
I tend to drive with cruise on 33 in 30 limits. One morning I was overtaken one morning by my neighbour's wife who was in a hurry. In the next 10 miles having slowed down for the speed cameras she gained one car's length and had held me up . . . so yes it is the locals that get caught.
The simple way is to remember the old guidelines and not to exceed them.
But that's chicken and egg, because local authorities won't put in place official speed cameras / speed reduction measures until a speeding problem is proven.
Sure, we could wait for someone to be seriously injured or killed, or some accidents to happen.
Or maybe, a group of community spirited people could spend their own time recording the speed of vehicles, to get actual evidence of a problem, so that the limited public resources can be targeted effectively.
It would be interesting to see any sensible argument against this arrangement.
The only ones I can think of is the squeaky wheel getting the grease (in which case other areas affected by speeding need to speak up) or it's open to abuse by little Hitlers. But even their power is only derives from gathering court standard evidence of people speeding, so I can't get too upset about that either.
Sure, we could wait for someone to be seriously injured or killed, or some accidents to happen.
Or maybe, a group of community spirited people could spend their own time recording the speed of vehicles, to get actual evidence of a problem, so that the limited public resources can be targeted effectively.
It would be interesting to see any sensible argument against this arrangement.
The only ones I can think of is the squeaky wheel getting the grease (in which case other areas affected by speeding need to speak up) or it's open to abuse by little Hitlers. But even their power is only derives from gathering court standard evidence of people speeding, so I can't get too upset about that either.
Miserablegit said:
In response to the Surveyor
That all seems sensible but your post is not reflective of the reality of the situation however.
My village, for instance, had a spate of cars ending upside down after racing through the village and then somehow mounting the verge. Verges were chewed up on a hill as HGVs came flying down and could not slow down in time to safely pass other HGVs and so crossed the pavement chewing up the verge on the other side of the pavement ( not the road side) They’d have killed anybody on the pavement.
Local authority not interested at all. Unless someone is killed on a road they tend to ignore it.
It does surprise me that in this day and age one can be aware of the risks and turn a blind eye until there is a fatality.
So the local authority’s approach is there isn’t a problem as no one is dead yet but if you want to take it further you HAVE to set up a community speed watch before we take any notice. The ridiculous thing is that part of the speedwatch guidance used to require warning signs being placed on all the entrances to the roads when speedwatch was on - hence very few people getting “caught”.
I have no problem with speedwatch groups as they are doing their best to tackle a problem that local authorities ignore. The speed watch results are also used in determining where to place camera vans.
That's not 'the reality of the situation' that's just your perspective.That all seems sensible but your post is not reflective of the reality of the situation however.
My village, for instance, had a spate of cars ending upside down after racing through the village and then somehow mounting the verge. Verges were chewed up on a hill as HGVs came flying down and could not slow down in time to safely pass other HGVs and so crossed the pavement chewing up the verge on the other side of the pavement ( not the road side) They’d have killed anybody on the pavement.
Local authority not interested at all. Unless someone is killed on a road they tend to ignore it.
It does surprise me that in this day and age one can be aware of the risks and turn a blind eye until there is a fatality.
So the local authority’s approach is there isn’t a problem as no one is dead yet but if you want to take it further you HAVE to set up a community speed watch before we take any notice. The ridiculous thing is that part of the speedwatch guidance used to require warning signs being placed on all the entrances to the roads when speedwatch was on - hence very few people getting “caught”.
I have no problem with speedwatch groups as they are doing their best to tackle a problem that local authorities ignore. The speed watch results are also used in determining where to place camera vans.
'Risk' is not binary, there is 'risk' whether a vehicle passing is doing 25mph or 35mph yet the way you focus on speed suggests there would be no risk if everybody obeyed the speed limit. That's a dangerous and over-simplistic approach IMHO.
Nobody wants to see anybody killed on the roads, not even your arch enemy in the Local Authority. The 'reality of the situation' being more likely that they have already assessed the 'risk' and fond that further actions are not merited. Maybe they haven't turned a blind eye, maybe they just don't agree with the rampant hyperbole about racing cars and flying trucks !
rscott said:
Or that there simply aren't enough resources to cover all potential areas to determine actual risk. the CSW in this area provide data to the Safer Roads partnership who then use it to target their limited resources efficiently. They also sometimes send a PCSO out with Trucam to work alongside the CSW team.
There's also the matter that criteria for speed calming measures - be they road furniture or cameras - seem somewhat strange. A recent traffic survey of two roads in our village (using the sensors laid across the road over a 7 day period) showed that only 44% complied with the 40 limit and speeds up to 80mph were recorded.
Yet that's deemed "substantial compliance" and no need for any enforcement activities, let alone cameras.
Yet that suggests they do have enough resources to determine the risk, they have measured the speed, they have looked at the figures, and they have deemed there is no need for any further enforcement. Just because you don't agree with their assessment doesn't make it automatically wrong. There's also the matter that criteria for speed calming measures - be they road furniture or cameras - seem somewhat strange. A recent traffic survey of two roads in our village (using the sensors laid across the road over a 7 day period) showed that only 44% complied with the 40 limit and speeds up to 80mph were recorded.
Yet that's deemed "substantial compliance" and no need for any enforcement activities, let alone cameras.
They see a 40mhp limit roads and they see that a lot of people perfectly safely exceed that speed by a small margin.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff