Speed cameras (obviously nb)

[Nat]

My defense is, yes its my vehicle but no one will admit to being the driver. It always results in a nasty letter but no action. My vehicle's are company registered.
But I seem to recall the Hamiltons got away with the same excuse, saying they could not remember who was driving at the time.
...........Nat

<hr width=100% size=1>2655 ! You can tell me, I'm a Docter !

 

[britemp]

Re: Insurance Companies.........O yes they do by g

Hear! Hear!

I am anti camera, but very pro-police. I cannot imagine anyone thinking the roads are safer now with more cameras and less police officers than previously where experienced officers enforced the rules of the road.

Speed cameras are all a big fix - ACPO figures show that a parked police car reduces accidents 12 times more than a speeding camera does. If you bin every camera and replace it with a policeman you will hear no complaint from me! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif


<hr width=100% size=1><< Sig removed at request from Kim Hollamby - he thought it might scare forumites! >>

 

[britemp]

Another good rouse is to say who was driving - make sure it was a friend of yours who was visiting you at the time and who happens to come from a non-EU country! /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

What do you think the chances of them following that up is? /forums/images/icons/cool.gif


<hr width=100% size=1><< Sig removed at request from Kim Hollamby - he thought it might scare forumites! >>

 

[AlexL]

Re: Insurance Companies.........O yes they do by golly.

perhaps you would like to visit the families of the 35% extra fatalities which occured on the south essex roads since the police started using the cameras and explain that the thousands of cameras have actually made the roads safer, but the death of their little johnny was just a statistical blip.?

FACT: in the last 2 years essex police have been allowed to keep the revenue from the cameras (just to cover costs so they say)
FACT: in the last 2 years they have dramatically increased the number of cameras and reduced the number of patrol cars on the roads
FACT: Fatalities have risen by 35-40% - in the 1st year of using cameras they got all excited by a 2-3% reduction in fatalites, now they've got a 200 page report and edverts everywhere trying to explain that having 120 people killed in this small area avery year instead of about 80 is infact a reduction and we are just bad at maths.

Bring back the patrol cars I say. I drive round the M25 every day (twice every day in fact) and see all sorts of dangerous driving -tailgating, weaving in and out traffic, sheer aggresion -but the police message is affectively that you can do this and drink, and take drugs and be tired, so long as you do it all at less than 70mph. Wheras I can be stone cold sober, driving a brand new safe, taxed and insured car at 85mph on a sunny day and all of a sudden I'm dangerous.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Ian - one thought, maybe it wasn't a speed trap at all but one of the automated tax disc-checking vans where the computer reads your numberplate and compares it with DVLC to see if you are taxed. Giveaway is that these have a traffic car stationed a couple of hundred yards down the road to pull the untaxed over - speed traps don't have the pull-over team as there is no need.

<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds

Simon
Its Only Money
Fairline Sprint
Solent-based

 

[itsonlymoney]

Thanks for the input everyone. I allready have 3 points on my licence and as I do around 30K a year I can do without anymore, will have to wait and see.
Ian

<hr width=100% size=1>Play the best game you can with the cards you've been dealt ! ! !

 

[Aardee]

I'm lucky to have a brother who hasn't driven since he passed his test at 17 (he's now 41...). He currently has 9 of "my" points on his license /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.

 

[Alistairr]

Ian, Are you sure it was a Speed camera?
In Glasgow they are using a lot of those small white vans sitting at the side of the road with the back doors lying open and the camera sticking out.
They are usually small Citreon Vans and it is the DVLA doing Digital check for Tax disc dodgers.

So you might be lucky.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://arweb.co.uk/argallery/alistair?&page=1> My Pictures, Please take a Look.</A>

 

[martynwhiteley]

Best get Kim to zap this post before you get a visiting from Scotland Yard!



<hr width=100% size=1><font color=blue> <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mboat.org>http://www.mboat.org</A></font color=blue>

 

[[2068]]

If the speedo said 36mph, your true speed could easily have been 32 or 33, in which case you are v.unlikely to get a ticket.

dv.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[britemp]

<cough> allegedly <cough> /forums/images/icons/smile.gif


<hr width=100% size=1><< Sig removed at request from Kim Hollamby - he thought it might scare forumites! >>

 

[jimi]

erm .. I got done for 39mph in a 30mph zone ... at midnight

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MikeBrazier]

I think that the tolerances are set differently by the different police authorities, I am refering to the West Midlands where the camara's seem to be set up as I said, other area's are probably different.

Regards,
Mike.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[gjgm]

colleague just got nabbed by some new tripod/handheld gun...at 2500yards. officer even let him have a play with it to show how fantastic it was (depending which side of the gun you are)
Certain amounts above the speed limit fall under automatic fines/points, but outside that he was told he might be facing up to £3000.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

"1. If you do not receive a Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence you've got away with it!" Sorry, not quite true. They just need to send it out within 14 days of the alleged offence. For instance, if there is a post strike, or the car is not in your name so the notice of intended prosecution gets sent elsewhere first. Lets say it was your car but you were not the driver, the notice of intended prosecution is first sent to you, it asks you to identify who the driver was and send it back, they then send it out to the person who was driving. It's probably a month from when the offence took place by the time the driver receives it but as long as they sent out the original notice of intended prosecution within 14 days then your done.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://photos.blueyonder.co.uk./album/album_fullsize.html?c_photo=10714599>Nirvana</A>

 

[Bergman]

Re: Insurance Companies.........O yes they do by golly.

Think its a bit more complicated than that.

The principle as I understand it is that reducing speed will reduce the effects of an accident. Hitting something or someone at 30 is more likely to be survivable than hitting it (them) at 40.

The reasons you give for main causes of accidents all have a relation to speed in that, for example, "inattention" is more likely to result in an accident at high speed than at low speed.

The fact that fatalities have not fallen or in the Essex example quoted have risen I cannot explain. I suspect its related to increased traffic levels and reduced policing by "live" policemen. I can see no reason why introducing cameras would directly cause more or worse accidents.

I do about 40k a year and the number of examples of aggresive and competitive driving appears to me to be on the increase, some people are downright scary.

As someone once said if all the cars in England were placed nose to tail there would still be some silly ****** wanting to overtake.

One last dig

Was once at an event at Millbrook hosted by Quentin Willson. He opened by a show of hands of who had what make of car -
hands up the Jaguar owners --
hands up those who own a Ford --
Hands up those who own a BMW --
Hands up those who got carved up by a BMW on their way here --
Huge show of hands cheers and round of applause.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Never let facts get in the way of a rant.

Not quite sure about Essex but a quick search on your local police and safety statistics websites indicates that increase in fatalities would appear mainly to be as a result of over confident born again bikers er... going too fast and more than one person being in a fatal car crash.However away from the wild west badlands of Essex ie. Kent,data shows that fatal injuries in our safe county fell by 50% last year
University College London also gives the saving in lives throughout the whole of the UK as 870.
Ps.Just another silly old boring uninteresting statistical fact but child deaths actually fell by 4% during the period in question.




<hr width=100% size=1>Nastro Azzurro.Hoegaarden.Chang.Tiger.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Never let facts get in the way of a rant.

Sorry, but cannot accept statements like 4% fall in child deaths over the period, without better understanding of the stats behind that. Compared to what? over what periods measured before and after? Most importantly, are the stats significant (anyone that does stats will understand the validation of them) and the understanding of significant results,and how those results are measured. 4% in it's self is of no worth at all.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[oldgit]

Re: Never let facts get in the way of a rant.

blimey your up late.OK Police web site ses that there was a reduction in child fatalities comparing 2003 with 2002(only available complete figs) of 4%.No figs available yet for 2004 one presumes.
Unable to give exact numbers on drop in total/child details as page is bannered as being updated.

<hr width=100% size=1>Nastro Azzurro.Hoegaarden.Chang.Tiger.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Never let facts get in the way of a rant.

I suspect that the numbers involved are so small that a few deaths difference in total between the years, would provide the 4%. However, when the numbers are that small, it is not usually statistically significant.

Rather more interesting is the trend which can be seen here:
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.police999.com/traffic/rtastats-04.html>http://www.police999.com/traffic/rtastats-04.html</A>

look at the UK row, age group 0 - 14 has dropped from 499 in 1980, to 160 in 2002

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni