Speed cameras again!! Non boaty.

[longjohnsilver]

Seems a new breed of speed camera is about to be introduced which can catch us speeding from a mile away!

Oh joy, yet more points to be added to the licence! Naturally this will make the roads even safer. Nothing at all to do with raising extra revenue for old Gordie.

I'm not a celebrity, get me out of here!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[SteveE]

I read that today, but the flaw has to be line of sight? show me a road that is 1 mile long that does not have some sort of traffic jam on it? The longer and straighter the road the more the traffic jam...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mollari]

The trick is to drive faster than the cameras shutter speed!/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://mysite.freeserve.com/leisure_marine_prep>http://mysite.freeserve.com/leisure_marine_prep</A>

 

[Talon]

Yes that irritated me a lot when I saw the report! Again another revenue earner!!!

B&^%tards!

What are they trying to do, take money off us, put us out of work because we end up having our licence taken off us within a 2 mile stretch of road! All in the name of safety, yeah right......

They said on the news that speeding is the 7th cause of accidents, THE 7TH! It is not even in the top three reasons for accidents.

I could go on, but I could do without stressing myself out!/forums/images/icons/frown.gif



<hr width=100% size=1>Alex

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mad-als.com>http://www.mad-als.com</A>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

People use and distort statistics to suit their own prejudices and the govt have been saying for years that speeding is responsible for 30% of accidents. Well even if that were true, what about the other 70%?
As it happens, a recent Transport and Road Research Laboratory report has estomated that 'excessive speeding' is responsible for about 7% of all accidents behind other factors such as 'inattention' and 'looking but not seeing' amongst others
What is irrefutable is that the number of road deaths actually increased last year despite the continuing proliferation of speed cameras and despite the huge improvement in vehicle safety that manufacturers have made over the years


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Lynda]

On this subject, there's always been one thing that concerns me, if you go through the marked camera section at the correct speed, and another driver (not sharp enough to see the bloody thing) zooms passed and gets flashed and you're also caught in the picture, how do they know which one of you was speeding??????

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BarryH]

By the marks in the road.They count the difference between the two photos and work out your speed.
Which to my mind is where error comes into play. These lines are normally painted by a contractor. Now if Mick wants to get off early or he's had a right skinfull the night before and not measured them out properly. Then thats where the error comes in. Time/distance. Time is set by the camera. Two pics taken at a set time apart. But the distance is measured by the marks in the road. If they are too close together then intheory you've travelled further than you actually have where in reality you haven't because the narks are too close together. Thus giving a false speed. Lost yeah so am I a bit.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[salamicollie]

I think the GATSO cameras take several frames and the calibration marks on the road allow the speeds to be calculated - so you shouldn't get a ticket...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BarryH]

Oh I forgot to say that the pictures are studied by humans, which induces another error. It must do. Because looking at those damn pictures all day must be mind numbingly boring! A good site with regards to this subject is <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/frames.htm>http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/frames.htm</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Wiggo]

AFAIK, a photo with another vehicle in the picture is inadmissable as evidence from a GATSO.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/graham.wignall/boats/eulimene600x800.jpg>The old and the new</A>

 

[BarryH]

AH well then, just make sure your speeding with another vehicle then and you won't get done. BUT just to counter your argument, cos I'm in one of those moods this morning, how have they caught 1800 odd people in the roadworks on the M25 for speeding. Try and find a bit of road there with no other vehicles around you!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Wiggo]

Agreed. I found this snippet on a website somewhere under the section on 'how to avoid getting nicked'. Like asking for the original photo as evidence, not a copy, and getting an undoctored/uncropped version, and asking to see the camrea's calibration certificate etc. All strategies to get them to drop the prosecution as it gets too hard for them.

My understanding of what is admissible:

original photo only
must not be edited
must not be cropped
must not have been 'enhanced'
no other vehicle to be in the shot

Worth checking, innit?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/graham.wignall/boats/eulimene600x800.jpg>The old and the new</A>

 

[KevB]

What really gets my goat up is when a new dual carriageway is opened or a road is widened and the day it opens there is a speed camera. How do they know it's an accident black spot? An example of this is on the A2 into London, on the new streach of carriageway there are speed camera's and the road isn't even open yet!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BarryH]

Worth checking yes. Or just lay prone on the tank wind the throttle to the stops and hope you hit 156mph before you go through it!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Wiggo]

Nope, I know someone who got three months for 165+ in a 40 zone on a nitrous injected 'Blade. Twas off the scale on the Gatso, but they did him anyway.

A friend realised he was about to get flashed on the A40, so dropped two cogs and floored it - went through the camera on the back wheel with the numberplate looking at the tarmac...

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/graham.wignall/boats/eulimene600x800.jpg>The old and the new</A>

 

[peterandjeanette]

If the vehicle is company owned, claim that it is multi - use by several drivers who do not have to register its use. then request a copy of the photograph to " be able to identify the driver". Virtually impossible.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Planty]

Does this actually work as I have just had a summons to tell who was driving from a camera on the A34/M4 Junction, in the road works. Amazing how the camera was sited after the road works on a perfectly clear road but just inside the 40mph "restriction". But then how would I know that It might not have been me that was driving!!.

Agree with earlier post re unescessary cameras. They have just erected one on the road right outside the Belfry, about a mile from where we live. In 27 years there has only ever been 1 really serious accident at this point and that when a car came out of the Belfry into the path of an oncoming truck, nothing to do with speed!! Funny though that a "Traffic Master" flow sensor was positioned literally 50yds up the road about a year ago, and now there's a speed, sorry, safety camera, strange that??

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TwoStroke]

If I remember correctly, if no one owns up then company secretary has to take the blame with 3 points and fine.

<hr width=100% size=1>

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by TwoStroke on 27/05/2004 16:39 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Isnt that excuse that the rozzers use themselves when they're caught? Certainly does'nt end up with points on the Chief Constable's licence, thats for sure

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[deborahann]

totally agree re speed cameras, i got off years ago by claiming i couldn't remember who was driving my company car, and that it was multi use at the time. fully expected a clear picture of me at the wheel to arrive from them, but they just let me off.

however i am fairly certain now that you cannot get off in this way.

also the latest ploy from our government to reduce the points you actually get for speeding, is their way of continuing to earn increased revenue from drivers who wouldn't then be on the roads due to having too many points. To reduce the points means these drivers can continue to be fined & more money for the government/police. Its clearly all a money making racket with little to do with safety. Or our government's "concern for road drivers". A local road near me has speed camera's in all the spots where they have, to my knowledge, not had accidents in 12 years, and i can't think of one speed camera near any of the many accident black spots. Plus there is a police radar set up daily, many drivers now slow down in a very silly, and probably dangerous way to show their objection.

think we all need to rebel

<hr width=100% size=1>deborah on delft.
Nothing to do with Mucky Farter or hlb in drag