Beware of a Poole Speed Camera

[bigwow]

In Birmingham this is only offered to marginal speeders ie up to 38mph (in a 30 limit). A pal of mine has just been on one and he said it was actually very informative and cost the same as the fine but, as you say, no points.

The wife went on one of these courses rather than get the points, since being on the course she has become a nightmare passenger, giving a running commentary on my driving errors. I've only been doing it for 42yrs!!

 

[Dave_Seager]

I drive by it every day on the way to work and I checked again today.
Roughly 300m before is the nice 50mph repeater.
Roughly 200m before is the nice BIG 30mph sign.
Roughly 100m before is a dinky little 30mph repeater with a speed camera warning sign.

If you fail to see the BIG 30mph sign, its repeater, the camera sign and the camera itself how many less conspicuous hazards do you spot on and around the road?

 

[grumpy_o_g]

If you fail to see the BIG 30mph sign, its repeater, the camera sign and the camera itself how many less conspicuous hazards do you spot on and around the road?

That's the point isn't it? I'd rather be spotting hazards than cameras and signs. At the point those cameras on the junction are you are concentrating on other traffic which is suddenly realising it's the wrong lane, making sure the lemmings don't decide to cross the road against the lights and, if you don't know the junction, also trying to work where the hell you're supposed to be yourself at the same time.

To create a situation where you now have your ability to accelerate into gaps curtailed and to have to monitor your speedometer amongst all this is absolutely criminal.

I did get caught along here while I was unused to having a diesel turbo and auto gearbox - my fault as I was doing 36 mph in 30 mph limit but, when I went on the course, even the instructors suggested that this wasn't the best piece of positioning. The entire course focussed on hazard perception and basic roadcraft and the police examiners taking it didn't try to defend the fact that roadcraft is about driving to the conditions, not an arbitrary limit.

The speed limits in Bournemouth and Poole are frankly ridiculous; constantly changing and bearing no relationship to the environment - far from improving improve traffic flow or road safety they make significantly harder to concentrate on your actual driving.

 

[Geoffs]

I'm begining to think Poole doesn't like or want visitors, with their money raising 'safety cameras', and the crazy new bridge that will make keeping a boat in Holes Bay impractical. I shall probably have to leave Poole.

 

[nonitoo]

You will also find that there are speed camera warning signs leading up to the camera as well - usually some distance before the camera.

There are endless web sites offering advice as to how to get round the prosecution and they are almost always useless.

If you are speeding then you are committing a criminal offence, if you are not speeding then there is no problem. Simple ! If you believe you are innocent then, by all means, take the court option but be sure you are innocent otherwise you can face a hefty bill.

Points of Principle can be very expensive and lucrative for both the lawyers and the court system !! A penalty ticket may also cover an offence that, if it went to court, would garner more points and fines (and costs) if proved.

See http://www.sentencing-guidelines.go...s_guidelines_including_update_1_ 2 _3_web.pdf Page 131

You may not approve of it all, but the legislation has been there for ages and so we all have to live with it.

Tom

 

[mickyb]

Just go to this website and have a good look at the forums... its free and these guys are amazing!! helped me out before..

www.pepipoo.com

It will take some time sifting the forums but my goodness its worth doing! I don't condone speeding but I do despise stealth tax!

Best wishes

 

[Tranona]

If you fail to see the BIG 30mph sign, its repeater, the camera sign and the camera itself how many less conspicuous hazards do you spot on and around the road?

And the BIG 30 painted on the road in both lanes. And the lane markings that direct you to the outside lane if you want to go to the docks - which at least 50% of people ignore because it means they have to wait behind somebody else instead of being able to carve their way in front when they get past the lights! And of course you get a second chance to carve people up when you get in the wrong lane at the next set of lights. Funny how people who know they want to go to the docks or into the town centre deliberately move into a lane marked Dorchester which is 25 miles in the opposite direction to where they really want to go!

Guess who uses this route regularly and the above happened with two cars today - nothing new!

 

[timbartlett]

Has to be said I'm afraid that I am dismayed by the attitude here guys.. pretty much all these speed restriction measures are there for a purpose,

Yes, they are there for a purpose... to raise revenue.

 

[Robin]

And the BIG 30 painted on the road in both lanes. And the lane markings that direct you to the outside lane if you want to go to the docks - which at least 50% of people ignore because it means they have to wait behind somebody else instead of being able to carve their way in front when they get past the lights! And of course you get a second chance to carve people up when you get in the wrong lane at the next set of lights. Funny how people who know they want to go to the docks or into the town centre deliberately move into a lane marked Dorchester which is 25 miles in the opposite direction to where they really want to go!

Guess who uses this route regularly and the above happened with two cars today - nothing new!

I get confused on the very rare occasions I go that way and I live here!

Poole has a few confusing junctions. Fleets roundabout is dreadful, nice roundabout shame about the traffic lights. The number of near misses from last minute lane changing or from being rear ended because the light has gone red in front and the driver behind is still trying to work out which lane to be in, looking at painted signs on the road and not the vehicle in front, bang. By contrast the other day I was stopped by the lights 3 times getting round, yet I was the only car on the roundabout. Then we had an all day power cut, no lights working and guess what the traffic flowed super smoothly all day.

In the recent wintry spell there were 22 (I think) cars in one pile up on black ice at Castlepoint junction on the spur road, 50 limit soon to be 40 limit but dual carriageway with crash barriers. I would love to know a) why the flyover wasn't better salted/gritted (always a cold spot) and b) If it wasn't started off by somebody braking for the speed camera which they do, even if they are already below the limit, as a natural reaction.

 

[Ludd]

After more years than I can remember I have just received a Notice of Intended Prosecution for Speeding. Oh the shame of it

I was visiting Poole last Saturday and didn't realise that the 50mph dual-carriage way on Holmes Bay Rd dropped to 30 mph at the traffic lights with the junction of Sterte Road. Apparently they have installed, I have discovered, a speed camera that catches 'speeders' as well as red light jumpers. I drive for mpg these days and have downsized my car so getting up to 50mph takes quite some time

Can anyone local to Poole tell me if there is a sign advertising the change to 30pmh or is it that the distance between the street lights changes at the lights indicating to the very observant motorist that the speed should be 30mph? I don't remember seeing a 30 mph sign before the traffic lights, however, as I was in the outside lane at the time overtaking stationary traffic on the inner lane my eyes were focusing on the road ahead and the other cars. On the previous occasions I have driven to Poole these traffic lights have always been Red.

Any advice as to whether it is worth going to Court to plead my case or just take the fixed penalty procedure and gain my first points?

This speed camera appears to be a local revenue generator rather than a true safety measure.

I am hoping that a berth closer to home is soon confirmed so that I won't have to run the speed camera gauntlet in Poole again!

Do you consider that 50mph is a safe speed to be overtaking stationary traffic at or approaching traffic lights? Obviously you had to concentrate on hazards and stationary traffic at that speed,so couldn't be expected to see irrelevant things like roadsigns!

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

It's simple. Equip yourself with a good scamera detector like the Road Angel. I recommend this one in particular http://www.road-angel-gps.co.uk/road-angel-professional-connected.htm because it's constantly updating itself. It will warn you of all fixed cameras and all potential mobile camera sites. I consider these things safety aids as you are quite right; you should be concentrating on the potential dangers on the road ahead rather than being fixated on your speedo, not to mention pothole avoidance which, at the moment, is the biggest hazard on our roads

 

[oGaryo]

Yes, they are there for a purpose... to raise revenue.

of course they are there for that reason too and I much prefer the revenue is raised by those that persist in speeding around our roads unsafely, causing risk to others, than it to come out of my pocket to improve the facilities.

As for having to watch out for things other than the hazard on the road because they're distracted by having their eye on the camera/speedo.. I had to laugh at that to be honest, if folk were driving to the rules of the road adhering to the signage in place ahead of the camera, such as speed signs, then they'd not have to slam on the brakes to avoid being flashed or look at their dash any more than they'd need to in order to adhere to the speed limit.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm certainly no do gooder, just sick to death of inconsiderate drivers and have no compassion for anyone who tries to argue they're in the right when speeding.... I see Seahope isn't doing that and has taken the penalty on the chin (nice one ) if the attitude was a momentary lack of concentration once in a very long while then I'd take the penalty as a wake up call to driving with more care and attention.. better to get flashed than flatten some kid on our roads.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I know the issue of speeding raises emotions but I'm afraid the fact is that excessive speed is responsible for only a small proportion of road accidents. There are loads of links on the interweb about this but here is just one http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1992.asp
Unfortunately, HMG and Plod have a clear policy under which they focus totally on speed limit enforcement and virtually ignore all other factors causing accidents. The reason for this is obvious, of course. Speed cameras bring in revenue and putting traffic cops on the road to deter and prosecute other forms of bad driving costs money. To back up this policy, both HMG and Plod have engaged in a disengenious marketing campaign to brainwash us into believing that if you drive under the limit you are safe and if you drive over the limit you are not. It is plainly absurd to think that a driver proceeding at 29mph is a safe driver and one proceeding at 31 mph a dangerous one. We all know that their are lot more factors involved in driving safely other than religiously observing the speed limit.
Of course, most intelligent people have seen this policy for the nonsense that it is which is why, of course, it is so often ridiculed on this forum. Speed cameras and speed limit enforcement should be an important part of road safety policy but road safety policy should also include putting far more traffic cops on the road to deter other forms of bad driving, a more rigorous driving test with retesting for persistent offenders, modifying badly designed roads, making street furniture safer in a collision amongst many other things

 

[timbartlett]

of course they are there for that reason too and I much prefer the revenue is raised by those that persist in speeding around our roads unsafely, causing risk to others, than it to come out of my pocket to improve the facilities.

As for having to watch out for things other than the hazard on the road because they're distracted by having their eye on the camera/speedo.. I had to laugh at that to be honest, if folk were driving to the rules of the road adhering to the signage in place ahead of the camera, such as speed signs, then they'd not have to slam on the brakes to avoid being flashed or look at their dash any more than they'd need to in order to adhere to the speed limit.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm certainly no do gooder, just sick to death of inconsiderate drivers and have no compassion for anyone who tries to argue they're in the right when speeding.... I see Seahope isn't doing that and has taken the penalty on the chin (nice one ) if the attitude was a momentary lack of concentration once in a very long while then I'd take the penalty as a wake up call to driving with more care and attention.. better to get flashed than flatten some kid on our roads.

I'm pleased you accept that scameras are there to raise revenue.
Revenue Every layer of government is obsessed with raising revenue. Sadly it is less interested in providing the services that we already pay for. If it hasn't got enough money to provide the services, then it should cut the waste -- sack half the civil service, sell off most government buildings (or make them into low cost homes for nurses, firemen, and MPs), and trade in the talivans for more bin lorries, (and retrain their crews accordingly).
speeding around our roads unsafely You are assuming that exceeding an arbitrary speed limit is unsafe. This assumption has no basis in fact. The *safe* speed on any piece of road depends on the conditions: the speed limit doesn't: that is why I say "arbitrary".
Signage[/] Unnecessary and excessive "signage" is a significant hazard on UK roads -- particularly as it is so inconsistent, and genuine hazards are often unmarked. It is also noticeable that many signs nowadays have yellow boxes around them, designed to increase the number of fake scameras, and therefore camouflage the real ones.
distracted by speedo It is very difficult, in a modern vehicle, to tell exactly how fast you are going without looking at the speedo. So to tell the difference between 49 and 51mph (legal and illegal) is almost impossible. So you either need to drive excessively slowly, or look at the speedo. Often, you see people jam on their brakes when they pass a camera even if they are not exceeding the speed limit -- simply because they cannot be certain. This is particularly true now that speed limits are so often set ridiculously low.
better to get flashed than flatten some kid If parents encourage their kids to go and play on dual carriageways, perhaps it is they who need the courses and penalties, not the drivers whose lives and livelihoods they are endangering. You almost never see scameras near schools -- simply because most people don't speed near schools. In particular, they don't speed when the kids are about (apart from anything, they can't -- too much traffic!) You usually see scameras on motorways and dual carriageways, at the bottoms of hills, in amongst groups of pointless signage, anywhere that the speed limit has recently been reduced. They (except in some of the expensive bits of Dorset) they are pretty rare in villages -- unless the speed limit has been pointlessly extended for a mile or so beyond the village, in which case there will probably be one buried in the hedge about 50 yards before the NSL sign.
and finallyIf they are about safety and not about revenue, why did the number of cameras increase so dramatically when the government allowed the scamera partnerships to keep a share of the take? The very term "partnership" implies a business proposition. Didn't the police, courts, and councils care about safety until they were bribed with money?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Well said, Tim. Just to demonstrate the rationale behind speed camera placement, a group of parents from my son's previous school recently lobbied our local council to construct a pelican crossing on the busy main road outside the school. They were told that there were insufficient resources to do this and, in case, there hadn't been a sufficient number of accidents to justify it. A few months later, the local 'safety partnership' miraculously found the cash to erect a speed camera on the same stretch of road. Unfortunately, they didn't locate it before the school where it would have the effect of slowing drivers down as they passed the school but several hundred yards after the school where the road opens up into countryside and just before the limit increases to the national speed limit. The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the local 'safety partnership' were more interested in the extra revenue to be gained from locating the camera in a position where it could catch the most number of motorists than in increasing the safety of local schoolchildren

 

[oGaryo]

to be honest Tim, this is one of those topics of debate where there'll be a plethora of conflicting statistics and opinion that I doubt will get answered here. The sentiment still stands.. excessive speed increases the risk of killing an unfortunate soul whether they be on foot, on a bike or in a car.. whatever measures in place to help avoid that happening in my opinion is a good thing and not adhering to them is bad. That's my simple black and white view I'm afraid.

 

[timbartlett]

to be honest Tim, this is one of those topics of debate where there'll be a plethora of conflicting statistics and opinion that I doubt will get answered here. The sentiment still stands.. excessive speed increases the risk of killing an unfortunate soul whether they be on foot, on a bike or in a car.. whatever measures in place to help avoid that happening in my opinion is a good thing and not adhering to them is bad. That's my simple black and white view I'm afraid.

This is the same logic as "Dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.", and is almost identical to to the argument that says it somehow helps the "helps the victims" of a crime if an innocent man gets locked up for it while the real perpetrator goes free.

 

[oGaryo]

This is the same logic as "Dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.", and is almost identical to to the argument that says it somehow helps the "helps the victims" of a crime if an innocent man gets locked up for it while the real perpetrator goes free.

whoooooooosh... straight over my head that one. time for me to walk on by this topic as I've said all I need to and will leave you to ponder your analogies Tim take care

 

[gjgm]

This is the same logic as "Dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.", and is almost identical to to the argument that says it somehow helps the "helps the victims" of a crime if an innocent man gets locked up for it while the real perpetrator goes free.

You seem to be choosing the terms of your argument, here.
Its pretty simple. You are not allowed to drive above the legal speed limit.
I dont see the method of catching you should somehow alleviate the offence.
Are you not one step away from suggesting its ok to speed as long as you dont get caught?
Incidentally, to elsewhere, the 14 day isnt rigid in the timing through the front door. Plod or whoever would have to prove they processed it within 14 days.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

This is the same logic as "Dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.", and is almost identical to to the argument that says it somehow helps the "helps the victims" of a crime if an innocent man gets locked up for it while the real perpetrator goes free.

Talking about victims, don't forget that if you're fined £60 for speeding these days, HMG rips you off for another £15 for the victim support fund. Exactly who the victim is when you're nabbed doing 60mph on an empty 50mph dual c/way is anybody's guess. Just another plank in HMG's policy of criminalising all motorists