OT: Speed camera

I hadn't contributed to this thread before today, because I couldn't answer your original question, but I have been following it because I knew I probably had one on the way. It arrived this morning :-((

Anyway, it included a page entitled "speed and red light detection Top 10 questions"

Question 2 is entitled Our duty/Your duty Our duty to you.

It reads "A notice of intended prosecution must be sent to the last known address of the registered keeper within 14 days of the detection of the alleged offence"

It doesn't specify calendar or working days It's from Dorset incidentally, I don't know if that makes a difference.

HTH

Steve

Are you crazy? Motorways could not have their speed limits removed, there is simply too much traffic on them.

-- James

Is it hell. I do a night trunk run. I drive back through York at varying times between 2.30am-6am Tuesday to Saturday morning. I see peolpe staggering home from parties/clubs on most mornings no matter what the time or weather.

I also see some really wierd stuff as well and you'd be suprised how often you see flashing blue lights at an accident where someones gone off the road for no apparent reason. Going by your logic, I could be doing over 80 on a NSL A road quite legally, go round a corner and suddenly be confronted with a car on its roof. Trouble is I'd be going too fast to stop. And yes, I have come across this situation before twice in the last 4 years although I was going under 60, stopped and gave assistance. Both were at night on a NSL A road and around 3am.

Here we go....

Drives a non turbo Pug 405 D so he couldn't possibly be speeding. Please remind me of the manufacturers stated top speed again?

He's got 3 points for the first time because this time he was unlucky and actually got caught. I've got a clean licence despite doing over 100,000 miles per year. I've done over 1.5 million miles in the last 12 years which is far more than your Grandfather has probably done in his entire lifetime. Does that mean I never break the speed limit? No. It merely means I've not been caught.

the same doors they leave open to point the speed trap at you :)

i don't think so all in all, at the last count there were 22 million people in teh UK who could drive a car and at the same time there were 25 million cars on the road that were registered to people who could drive them i fail to understand how one peson can drive more than one car at the same time so you can only have a maximum of 22 million peopl eon teh road at any one time i myself have the use of 3 cars and a van for work, but i cna't drive them all statistics can be made to prove anything what about the old people who've ahd thier licensess for years and years? they don't drive as much though do they, so you have to factor that into the equation as well and the reason there seem to be more cars on the road is that they have closed off all the side roads so that all the traffic HAS to drive along the main roads and this just adds to the illusion

agreed there should have been a number for the amount of accidednts overall where "excesive" speed was a factor

(if you are involved in an accidednt you have to either have been moving and hit something or be stationary and have something hit you or be moving and hit something else that was also moving etc)

I think he does :) single track roads means you have to drive SLOWER to avoid hitting the combine harvester coming the other way :)

placing a camera on a bend is illegal :) it needs to be on a straight bit of road for a certain distance before it can be sited there

Try the Citizens Advice Bureau. They probably won't tell you how to get off but will very likely know the legalities of when you should receive the letter by etc.

-- Malc

message

LOL, good luck mate. I think the rules are the same for the whole of the UK. I've found a slight problem with mine. It states I'm the NEW driver, (I bought the car 2 months ago), so it looks like the PO didn't post the reg slip in time, causing an extended search for me ( I renewed the tax disk on Nov 1) using the tear off bit at the bottom of the reg doc. So maybe the DVLA still had the PO as the registered owner : ( . I have 28 days to reply to the charge, so I'll take the whole time so if I have to pay the £60, it'll be after Xmas. LOL

Where I live there are also lots of single track roads. Some of them are fine for doing 60 on ... but then, the speed limit is a maximum, not a target.

Ian

SNIP ALL

I see today that Christine and Neil Hamilton have been let off from their speeding offence because they "couldn't remember" who was driving. Not the first instance of this, ISTR that a senior police officer did the same.

I wonder what they'd do if a judge were to say "OK you both get three points" Would that jog their memories do you think?

Steve

Offences, yes absolutely. But prosecutions? As speed cameras have proliferated, traffic police have been cut. The only possible way these people could be caught is if they are caught speeding.

Sorry, but that's an irresponsible and frankly irritating attitude. A collapsed manhole cover, worn surface, and poor drainage in the wet are all capable of having you off a bike at walking pace. If you ride around scanning the road surface constantly, you aren't riding safely.

No, it was actually nicked from Autocar, who have researched it in a lot more detail, and have backing from the motoring associations, several long serving traffic officers, and shock horror, a couple of politicians too!

Vehicle occupant deaths, yes. What about pedestrian / cyclist deaths though, and the actual number of RTA's?

I'm arguing for an end to nonsensical speed limits such as 40 mph dual carriageways, enforced by hidden cameras. I would happily see blanket coverage in high risk areas if I could do a sensible speed when out of town. This approach has been used by Germany for years, and works quite well.

Dan

And who pays attention to the speed limit now? What's the point of it?

Very few people will drive at > 100 MPH at the minute on motorways, if the speed limit was removed completely you would legally be able to do 150 MPH. Some people will still do 50MPH while you are doing 150MPH, that is a 100MPH speed difference. I've had people pull out in front of me for no apparent reason with a speed difference of say 30MPH or 40MPH and had to drop anchors to avoid an accident, I would not want to have the same thing happen with a

I've been driving down the motorway at times when the traffic stops for no apparent reason, and I mean stop dead, not slowing down first to give you warning. An increase in speed limits to 80MPH would perhaps be safe, but there has to be some limit.

How far can you see with your headlights at night? Far enough to drive safely at 150MPH? I think not, although people would try if there were no limits.

-- James

Not any more with ANPR cameras that cross-refernce the PNC to check if the vehicle is taxed/MOT'd/insured. This technology does exist, and it is being used.

Sometimes this is sensible. For example, drive into Cardiff on the A48, and the speed reduces from NSL to 50 and then to 40. Feels like you're crawling but it's because of blind bends and hillcrests that obstruct your view of the road and any stationary traffic that is building up at junctions. It is frustrating to drive down it, but when you think about it you realise that actually it makes sense. Going the other way (out of town), you can do 70.

Personally I'd much rather see money invested in public transport to get some cars off the roads and then we wouldn't have such problems with congestion and safety in the first place.

Robert

Lane discipline would quickly get better, drive in Germany if you don't believe me.

Good, and as someone who always drives a "legal" car, I welcome this, as do many others. However, this doesn't address the problem of drunk, dangerous or erratic driving, as well as unroadworthy vehicles that have a valid MOT certificate (bald tyres, defective brakes etc). Plus downright inconsiderate or dangerous driving, which has become vastly more common over the past couple of years. Machines, however "efficient", are no match for the skill, judgement and logic of a trained and skilled traffic cop.

Absolutely, and I know there are cases like the road you mention where it is perfectly reasonable to have a lower limit, and to make sure it is enforced rigidly. But driving 50,000 miles a year, I see many which aren't so sensible. These roads just instil general disrespect for the speed limit in drivers and promote a much less healthy attitude to driving. As I said, I am all for low speed limits and blanket camera enforcement where there is consensus from independent experts that a higher limit would significantly increase the risk of accidents. And by independent expert, not a police commissioner whose constabulary stands to gain financially, and certainly not politicians who have no clue about real life with their fully expensed chauffeur driven limos.

No arguments from me there. However, we are going to be stuck with our cars for the foreseeable future, and we need to make our lot as painless as possible for now.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for sensible, enforced speed limits. However, the current policy of hidden and inappropriately sited cameras, and the almost exclusive pursuit of speed as the cause of accidents is not only failing to address road safety concerns, but costing lives. You can now lose your licence in a matter of minutes for a minor indiscretion (get caught on four successive cameras on the same stretch of road doing 46 in a 40 for example like my friend last year). Not only was his licence taken away, but he lost his job too. The fact is that the Transport Research Laboratory, as well as police accident statistics show that there are far more serious accidents caused by factors other than excess speed. I think that to pursue this small area solely because it is easiest to quantify and to pursue prosecution for is unacceptable, given the lives and livelihoods at stake.

Dan