Being warned by other motorists......police camera van ahead

[corozin]

Davie said:

These camera vans, their purpose is to reduce speed limits / save lives right...? On that basis, if you warn oncoming motorists who are a tad speedy to slow down, then you're obviously assisting the authorities in their quest to reduce speed limits and save lives and I'm sure the local constabulary would be most grateful for your efforts. They absolutely most definitely wouldn't be pissed at the fact they're missing out on £100 a pop... nope, absolutely not.

Odd isn't it, do this and the police almost burst a blood vessel and would have you hanged for denying them a few extra quid for the annual ball but stick some slightly mental old lady on a street armed with a hairdryer and she's hailed as being a national hero?

I warn people, though seems the PCP / stressed Mummy crew just glare back at you or mouth obscenities...

Hmm... I am reminded of the pair of clever bds in the Dorset "Safety" van who two weeks ago were parked up round a gentle bend on a dual carriageway going out of Bournemouth, well beyond the Cooper Dean junction but fortunately just 200 yds from the end of the arbitary 50mph speed limit. It really isn't about safety these days, just funding and jobs for the boys.

[vonhosen]

traffman said:

vonhosen said:

There's nothing wrong with that. The authorities warn people about such things.

Where there is a problem is where you are obstructing Police in the execution of their duty. That is (in this particular type of case) where they have started the process of gaining evidence of speeding against somebody & you wilfully interfere with that process & in doing so prevent them gaining the evidence they need to prosecute.

The courts are quite happy they can tell the difference from the circumstances reported to them in obstructing Police cases (even where people are protesting they were merely trying to clean their windscreen but pulled the wrong lever - after all they don't have to believe you just because you claim that to be the case).

Do these so called camera safety vans actually contain Police in them? As far as i was aware they are civillians carrying out the work of the devil?
If the Police are intent on upholding this law , is it not to be seen for the actual Police to carry out this deed , and try and position the van at actual black spots , and not around a corner , or on a long nice clear part of the highway?

The limit applies anytime anywhere & enforcement of it can take place anytime anywhere. Limits don't only apply (or have to be adhered to) at high collision incidence locations.

[traffman]

I can understand the positioning of the vans , anywhere at any place , i am more intrigued about the people enforcing these actions.

No one other than a Police officer can stop/request you stop or force you to stop.

Do the people who sit in these camera vans have the same authority as the law?

[vonhosen]

traffman said:

I can understand the positioning of the vans , anywhere at any place , i am more intrigued about the people enforcing these actions.

No one other than a Police officer can stop/request you stop or force you to stop.

Do the people who sit in these camera vans have the same authority as the law?

People other than Police officers can stop you or direct you to proceed in a particular direction (in certain circumstances), but the people in these vans (Police or otherwise) aren't attempting to stop you. They are witnesses recording evidence of offences & then somebody else later on makes a decision as to what action should be taken about it.

[Boosted LS1]

corozin said:

Davie said:

These camera vans, their purpose is to reduce speed limits / save lives right...? On that basis, if you warn oncoming motorists who are a tad speedy to slow down, then you're obviously assisting the authorities in their quest to reduce speed limits and save lives and I'm sure the local constabulary would be most grateful for your efforts. They absolutely most definitely wouldn't be pissed at the fact they're missing out on £100 a pop... nope, absolutely not.

Odd isn't it, do this and the police almost burst a blood vessel and would have you hanged for denying them a few extra quid for the annual ball but stick some slightly mental old lady on a street armed with a hairdryer and she's hailed as being a national hero?

I warn people, though seems the PCP / stressed Mummy crew just glare back at you or mouth obscenities...

Hmm... I am reminded of the pair of clever bds in the Dorset "Safety" van who two weeks ago were parked up round a gentle bend on a dual carriageway going out of Bournemouth, well beyond the Cooper Dean junction but fortunately just 200 yds from the end of the arbitary 50mph speed limit. It really isn't about safety these days, just funding and jobs for the boys.

They'll park there knowing that once driver's have passed the fixed camera's people want to get up to speed on the dual carriageway. Defo to make money as people leave Bournemouth.

[Boosted LS1]

vonhosen said:

traffman said:

vonhosen said:

There's nothing wrong with that. The authorities warn people about such things.

Where there is a problem is where you are obstructing Police in the execution of their duty. That is (in this particular type of case) where they have started the process of gaining evidence of speeding against somebody & you wilfully interfere with that process & in doing so prevent them gaining the evidence they need to prosecute.

The courts are quite happy they can tell the difference from the circumstances reported to them in obstructing Police cases (even where people are protesting they were merely trying to clean their windscreen but pulled the wrong lever - after all they don't have to believe you just because you claim that to be the case).

Do these so called camera safety vans actually contain Police in them? As far as i was aware they are civillians carrying out the work of the devil?
If the Police are intent on upholding this law , is it not to be seen for the actual Police to carry out this deed , and try and position the van at actual black spots , and not around a corner , or on a long nice clear part of the highway?

The limit applies anytime anywhere & enforcement of it can take place anytime anywhere. Limits don't only apply (or have to be adhered to) at high collision incidence locations.

Back in the day it was preferable to put fixed cameras at black spots but a few exceptions were allowed. The same probably applied to the vans. It didn't take long for all that to be turned on it's head. Camera's and speed traps on roads that have never had an accident let alone a KSI. It's a scam and always has been. If they were limited to accident black spots and weren't being sneaky then they may have had more support but so many ordinary folk have been taxed for making a small error of judgement. Even Mrs Miggins hates them.

[vonhosen]

Boosted LS1 said:

vonhosen said:

traffman said:

vonhosen said:

There's nothing wrong with that. The authorities warn people about such things.

Where there is a problem is where you are obstructing Police in the execution of their duty. That is (in this particular type of case) where they have started the process of gaining evidence of speeding against somebody & you wilfully interfere with that process & in doing so prevent them gaining the evidence they need to prosecute.

The courts are quite happy they can tell the difference from the circumstances reported to them in obstructing Police cases (even where people are protesting they were merely trying to clean their windscreen but pulled the wrong lever - after all they don't have to believe you just because you claim that to be the case).

Do these so called camera safety vans actually contain Police in them? As far as i was aware they are civillians carrying out the work of the devil?
If the Police are intent on upholding this law , is it not to be seen for the actual Police to carry out this deed , and try and position the van at actual black spots , and not around a corner , or on a long nice clear part of the highway?

The limit applies anytime anywhere & enforcement of it can take place anytime anywhere. Limits don't only apply (or have to be adhered to) at high collision incidence locations.

Back in the day it was preferable to put fixed cameras at black spots but a few exceptions were allowed. The same probably applied to the vans. It didn't take long for all that to be turned on it's head. Camera's and speed traps on roads that have never had an accident let alone a KSI. It's a scam and always has been. If they were limited to accident black spots and weren't being sneaky then they may have had more support but so many ordinary folk have been taxed for making a small error of judgement. Even Mrs Miggins hates them.

Before cameras existed speed enforcement was taking place anytime anywhere. Speed enforcement has never been reserved for accident sites only.

If the choice of speeds were limited only at accident sites, prior accident sites would be the only places that limits existed, but they aren't.

[Skyedriver]

If these things were safety cameras, they would be photographing the X5s etc tailgating me at speed yesterday or the light van towing a caravan at 20 - 25mph from Oban to Tyndrum yesterday with a queue of 25 or more cars behind them. They were so slow and erratic we were virtually stopped a few times and changing between 1st and 2nd gear. It's a windy road and people were taking chances to get past.
These "safety" cameras don't catch the drunk, drugged, tailgating, nutters who pull out of junctions in front of you etc etc.
Just the driver who, frustrated behind a slow caravan, motor home, truck, tractor etc finally finds a few hundred yards of straight to get passed only to see a camera at the end of it.

[vonhosen]

Skyedriver said:

If these things were safety cameras, they would be photographing the X5s etc tailgating me at speed yesterday or the light van towing a caravan at 20 - 25mph from Oban to Tyndrum yesterday with a queue of 25 or more cars behind them. They were so slow and erratic we were virtually stopped a few times and changing between 1st and 2nd gear. It's a windy road and people were taking chances to get past.
These "safety" cameras don't catch the drunk, drugged, tailgating, nutters who pull out of junctions in front of you etc etc.
Just the driver who, frustrated behind a slow caravan, motor home, truck, tractor etc finally finds a few hundred yards of straight to get passed only to see a camera at the end of it.

They never said or were never meant to deal with those matters, other means are to deal with those. The fact they can't deal with 'all' offences doesn't mean they have nothing to add for the offences they can deter/detect/provide evidence of.

[Boosted LS1]

vonhosen said:

Boosted LS1 said:

vonhosen said:

traffman said:

vonhosen said:

There's nothing wrong with that. The authorities warn people about such things.

Where there is a problem is where you are obstructing Police in the execution of their duty. That is (in this particular type of case) where they have started the process of gaining evidence of speeding against somebody & you wilfully interfere with that process & in doing so prevent them gaining the evidence they need to prosecute.

The courts are quite happy they can tell the difference from the circumstances reported to them in obstructing Police cases (even where people are protesting they were merely trying to clean their windscreen but pulled the wrong lever - after all they don't have to believe you just because you claim that to be the case).

Do these so called camera safety vans actually contain Police in them? As far as i was aware they are civillians carrying out the work of the devil?
If the Police are intent on upholding this law , is it not to be seen for the actual Police to carry out this deed , and try and position the van at actual black spots , and not around a corner , or on a long nice clear part of the highway?

The limit applies anytime anywhere & enforcement of it can take place anytime anywhere. Limits don't only apply (or have to be adhered to) at high collision incidence locations.

Back in the day it was preferable to put fixed cameras at black spots but a few exceptions were allowed. The same probably applied to the vans. It didn't take long for all that to be turned on it's head. Camera's and speed traps on roads that have never had an accident let alone a KSI. It's a scam and always has been. If they were limited to accident black spots and weren't being sneaky then they may have had more support but so many ordinary folk have been taxed for making a small error of judgement. Even Mrs Miggins hates them.

Before cameras existed speed enforcement was taking place anytime anywhere. Speed enforcement has never been reserved for accident sites only.

If the choice of speeds were limited only at accident sites, prior accident sites would be the only places that limits existed, but they aren't.

But we were sold down the river when told that cameras would be located at KISI sites and it's clearly not the case. Also a few bobbies carrying out random enforcement is nowhere as lucrative or punitive as the blitz being conducted today.

[Who me ?]

vonhosen said:

They never said or were never meant to deal with those matters, other means are to deal with those. The fact they can't deal with 'all' offences doesn't mean they have nothing to add for the offences they can deter/detect/provide evidence of.

Best description of WHAT cameras can't do. Problem is that out of the Sup't 's cupboard fell "lets get hot on speeding" , and it was seen to be profitable, so when funds are low, out comes the camera. Surely, Van, with what I see as someone with vast experience of road safety, you WILL/MUST be one of the first to admit that there are so many variables involved in road safety ,that ONLY one cure exists- the bloke in a White cap, driving a traffic car -to give advice and if needed prosecute.
Dog craps on front room carpet. You find it after the event and punish dog- does dog know what it's being punished for ?. Better to EDUCATE dog not to crap on carpet.

[vonhosen]

Boosted LS1 said:

But we were sold down the river when told that cameras would be located at KISI sites and it's clearly not the case. Also a few bobbies carrying out random enforcement is nowhere as lucrative or punitive as the blitz being conducted today.

There were no guarantees that they would always only be used at the sites of prior KSIs & even if any government had made such a promise no subsequent government would be beholden to the promises of a prior government.
With limits already being enforced anytime anywhere before they came along (& also as limits are not only being reserved as a safety tool) I think it's inevitable that camera enforcement wouldn't be limited to prior KSI sites.

It strikes me that the most sensible option for use of cameras (for a government that wants to see limits adhered to) would be to have highly visible camera enforcement combined with covert camera enforcement. It would also seem most sensible for the highly visible enforcement to take place in high risk locations & covert enforcement to take place in lower risk but high offending incidence areas.

I also think 'blitz' is hardly an accurate portrayal.
A very very small proportion of the network is covered for enforcement at any one time.
By & large the locations where camera enforcement may take place are not secret but are available.
There is no zero tolerance enforcement policy.
There is a then a graduated disposal policy dependent on the details of each offence.

[vonhosen]

Who me said:

vonhosen said:

They never said or were never meant to deal with those matters, other means are to deal with those. The fact they can't deal with 'all' offences doesn't mean they have nothing to add for the offences they can deter/detect/provide evidence of.

Best description of WHAT cameras can't do. Problem is that out of the Sup't 's cupboard fell "lets get hot on speeding" , and it was seen to be profitable, so when funds are low, out comes the camera. Surely, Van, with what I see as someone with vast experience of road safety, you WILL/MUST be one of the first to admit that there are so many variables involved in road safety ,that ONLY one cure exists- the bloke in a White cap, driving a traffic car -to give advice and if needed prosecute.
Dog craps on front room carpet. You find it after the event and punish dog- does dog know what it's being punished for ?. Better to EDUCATE dog not to crap on carpet.

You don't need an expensive resource like a Police officer in a Police car to educate you that the limit is not for exceeding, you already know it.
Exceeding the limit doesn't mean your driving was dangerous & where you are simply reported for speeding it isn't alleged that what you were doing was dangerous either. It's a simple regulatory matter that you went outside the rules & a penalty for doing so (as an encouragement to influence future choices in relation to your speed choice).

[BertieWooster]

Over here in Munich the local radio stations broadcast the whereabouts of speed camera vans (and their description as they are all unmarked) and police speed checks. In addition, drivers generally give you a quick flash of their headlights if you are approaching a camera van.

What I like about living here is the way speeding is dealt with. Anything up to 20kph over the limit results in a warning and a maximum of a €30 admin fee (€35 if it is within a built up area). If you pay the fee then the warning isn't registered against you.

[mygoldfishbowl]

NoIP said:

Stop splitting hairs . Everyone knew what he meant including you but you decided to be a smart arse over it to try and make yourself look good.

I don't know what he meant, does he mean limits or zones? If 30 zones are being introduced I'd like to know.

[Boosted LS1]

Von,

I do consider at a blitz when you include the number of specs being rolled out all over the country. Motoring is getting tedious now, I used to drive for pleasure and to some extend it allowed me to improve whatever concentration and skill I had. Now I may as well take a snooze along with everybody else.

[vonhosen]

Boosted LS1 said:

Von,

I do consider at a blitz when you include the number of specs being rolled out all over the country. Motoring is getting tedious now, I used to drive for pleasure and to some extend it allowed me to improve whatever concentration and skill I had. Now I may as well take a snooze along with everybody else.

It' still on a tiny tiny proportion of the network being covered.
I not only used to drive/ride for pleasure I still do.
I'm not saying I'm a saint, but with a bit of knowledge about where cameras are or are likely to be & with so much of the network not being covered by them, then I don't find my pleasure blighted (as I said it's no secret where they are likely to be).

They don't tend to be on roads I derive driving/riding pleasure from either. They tend to be in built up areas, motorways & long straight A roads. Roads where either you shouldn't be doing high speed or it's very easy to do high speeds. The roads I enjoy are roads it isn't easy to do really high speeds, don't have tons of traffic on & subsequently aren't likely to have cameras on because they aren't perceived by SCPs as either high risk or high incidence roads.
Having to do below 79 on a motorway doesn't worry me & it's not a road I go to for my driving/riding pleasure.

[culpz]

Skyedriver said:

If these things were safety cameras, they would be photographing the X5s etc tailgating me at speed yesterday or the light van towing a caravan at 20 - 25mph from Oban to Tyndrum yesterday with a queue of 25 or more cars behind them. They were so slow and erratic we were virtually stopped a few times and changing between 1st and 2nd gear. It's a windy road and people were taking chances to get past.
These "safety" cameras don't catch the drunk, drugged, tailgating, nutters who pull out of junctions in front of you etc etc.
Just the driver who, frustrated behind a slow caravan, motor home, truck, tractor etc finally finds a few hundred yards of straight to get passed only to see a camera at the end of it.

Whilst i agree with that you're getting at, how do you expect the Police to enforce this kind of behaviour? Cameras would be next to no use here. The reason why various camera equipment is used to catch people going over the limit, by using such technology, is simply because it's fairly straightforward to gather evidence of the offender(s).

This is why there is still an argument that mobile speed cameras are just there to make profits. If you pull out on a copper, for example, is that technically a mistake or dangerous driving? I'd say that there is a good chance, or at least a better chance, compared to being caught speeding, that you will get let off with a slap on the wrist.

It's ironic really, as i know which one is generally more likely to cause an accident and potential injuries/fatalities. Everyone makes mistakes, even the Police, but the same goes for speeding too. But, it gets judged completely differently and the reason why is the introduction of the speed camera and the photographic proof it presents.

[The Mad Monk]

traffman said:

Do these so called camera safety vans actually contain Police in them? As far as i was aware they are civillians carrying out the work of the devil?

Just one more time.

The police are civilians.

We have a civilian police service in Britain.

[Dr Jekyll]

culpz said:

Whilst i agree with that you're getting at, how do you expect the Police to enforce this kind of behaviour? Cameras would be next to no use here. The reason why various camera equipment is used to catch people going over the limit, by using such technology, is simply because it's fairly straightforward to gather evidence of the offender(s).

We've got a good hammer, let's treat everything as a nail.