5 notices of impending prosecution in the post

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

16 minutes ago, MarkW said:

Speed cameras have nothing whatsoever to do with road safety - the police lifted the lid on that one themselves when they threatened to fine motorists for flashing their headlights to warn each other of the presence of camera vans. They defended themselves by pointing to Section 89 of the 1996 Police Act:

"Any person who resists or willfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.”

If the purpose of the camera van is to improve road safety in high-risk areas by getting people to slow down as they always claim, then warning other motorists of its presence can hardly be said to constitute 'willful obstruction'. But if the purpose is to catch as many people as they can and collect the fines...

That's precisely the point I am making. The van appears so often because they know it is a lucrative place to put it - and why I suspect they don't want to stop the problem by installing repeater signs.

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

1 minute ago, TimR said:

Check the distance from signs to lights  etc as they may be within allowed distances

They are most certainly not.

[bonio]

18 minutes ago, MarkW said:

Speed cameras have nothing whatsoever to do with road safety - the police lifted the lid on that one themselves when they threatened to fine motorists for flashing their headlights to warn each other of the presence of camera vans. They defended themselves by pointing to Section 89 of the 1996 Police Act:

"Any person who resists or willfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.”

If the purpose of the camera van is to improve road safety in high-risk areas by getting people to slow down as they always claim, then warning other motorists of its presence can hardly be said to constitute 'willful obstruction'. But if the purpose is to catch as many people as they can and collect the fines...

You're right. It's really odd, given that static cameras are stuck up on poles and painted day-glo yellow, the reason, the police argue, is to get you to slow down when you see them. If they hid them behind rocks like they do in France, or painted camo green like in Germany, then this would at least be consistent with the idea of them being cash cows. As it is, it's not very joined up. I wonder if its a legacy of when there were cameras everywhere regardless of safety concerns.

[XTreme]

2 minutes ago, Trooper74 said:

So you can modify text that I post ... is that MOD privileges ....? Or just cut and paste ?

No......he modified your "quoted" post.......not your original reply.

The Mods have the ability to modify your original post......but @Six30 is not a Mod.

Because he's failed the aptitude test on multiple occasions. He's completely multi-talentless it has to be said.

[dynax]

5 minutes ago, bonio said:

You're right. It's really odd, given that static cameras are stuck up on poles and painted day-glo yellow, the reason, the police argue, is to get you to slow down when you see them. If they hid them behind rocks like they do in France, or painted camo green like in Germany, then this would at least be consistent with the idea of them being cash cows. As it is, it's not very joined up. I wonder if its a legacy of when there were cameras everywhere regardless of safety concerns.

With cameras, they have to be visible and have a clear notice that they are present, otherwise it could be entrapment. Not sure on this though as a very grey area

Edited December 14, 2020 by dynax

[MarkW]

4 minutes ago, Mississippi Bullfrog said:

That's precisely the point I am making.

I know. 

[bonio]

6 minutes ago, Mississippi Bullfrog said:

The van appears so often because they know it is a lucrative place to put it - and why I suspect they don't want to stop the problem by installing repeater signs.

I didn't think the police had the authority to put up repeaters on local roads; I thought it was the district council (or its equivalent) who has the say so?

[MarkW]

3 minutes ago, dynax said:

With cameras, they have to be visible and have a clear notice that they are present, otherwise it would be entrapment.

I'm not sure it would be entrapment, because the 'hidden' camera wouldn't be enticing you to commit an offence - not like an open van full of computer gear with a plain clothes officer hiding round the corner would be.

There's a stretch of road around here where the police regularly put a tripod-mounted camera right behind the wall of a disused village petrol station, where you'd have no chance of seeing them until you were well past them.  

[Guest Richzx6r]

5 hours ago, Trooper74 said:

It's a 30 mph area for a reason .... not a giggle ..... and i've had my fair share of points over the years ... paid the fines, did the speed and phone awareness courses ..... but took responsibility for it, learned and moved on .... slower and without the phone in my hand .... I didn't bleat about it ... 

So with this knowledge then I believe that you weren't in a position to bollock someone else for doing stuff that you have just freely admitted to doing worse than james has done I.e speeding profusely and using a mobile phone which I'd say was worse than doing 48 on a dual carriageway. 

 

So in summary before you call out others make sure you are whiter than white yea....

Edited December 14, 2020 by Richzx6r

[Slowlycatchymonkey]

But judge and slaughter is one of the cornerstones of British life

[XTreme]

I don't know why the big deal about this really......James went over the limit and got his collar felt. It's easily done!

Nobody died and in 100 years time nobody's going to give a shit anyway.

[Trooper74]

One of the guys I work with, our Engineering Director is about to be banned .... for the second time ... speeding points ....

He's lucky to be keeping his job .... 

But XTreme is right ...nobody died ...

 

[Fleck]

Thought I was getting one, 3 weeks ago I saw a camera van, looked down at the speedo... 38mph lifted off and slowed down. I know the clock reads about 4mph high so probably got off with that one by the skin of my teeth

[Keeper96]

7 hours ago, dynax said:

With cameras, they have to be visible and have a clear notice that they are present, otherwise it could be entrapment. Not sure on this though as a very grey area

Used to be the case But not any more. 
I got done by an unmarked car sitting in a line of parked vehicles so impossible to spot until he pulled out and pulled me over. 
I spent ages looking at the law and guidelines as I was positive there had to be a camera sign out but the rules changed a few years ago. 

[Bender]

Good luck, obviously your going to pay for your crimes, I used to use the a38 alot going to Brum I don't recall any speed restrictions on it, was along time ago, but I used to be able to do Brum in 2 1/2 ish on a night run.

[Six30]

just prepare yourself for the worst James

 

[Slowlycatchymonkey]

Crikey I’m sorry @James in Brum this thread would have stayed buried back in June if I hadn’t of asked. Sorry about that!

[James in Brum]

Not to worry. I’m not wounded by any of this. I am worried about the outcome, not by interweb opinion.

[dynax]

2 minutes ago, James in Brum said:

Not to worry. I’m not wounded by any of this. I am worried about the outcome, not by interweb opinion.

Just swap the petrol engine for an electric motor, jobs a good un, no licence needed

[Tango]

13 minutes ago, James in Brum said:

Not to worry. I’m not wounded by any of this. I am worried about the outcome, not by interweb opinion.

A colleague in my last company got done for speeding and was already up to the limit on points, so he got HR to write a letter explaining that if he lost his licence they would have to dismiss him and that would cause him severe financial hardship. He got a fine and more points, but no ban. 

[iangaryprice]

4 hours ago, Fleck said:

Thought I was getting one, 3 weeks ago I saw a camera van, looked down at the speedo... 38mph lifted off and slowed down. I know the clock reads about 4mph high so probably got off with that one by the skin of my teeth

If your speedo said 38mph, true speed 34mph then you should be OK, most Police Forces use the add 10% and 2mph = 35mph.

I had a close call on the Denbigh road , over the crest of a hill, spotted the camera van, they were just closing the hatch to move on! Close call!

[Trooper74]

Sorry James, I can get on my high horse some times ... Hope things work out for you .... 

[James in Brum]

Me too trooper  

I hope your family get the help it needs  

 

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

Apologies for a bit of an off topic - but thanks to @TimR advice the council meeting last night agreed to install 30mph repeater signs and also an interactive speed sign on the hill.

Result!

[MikeHorton]

On 14/12/2020 at 10:53, MarkW said:

Speed cameras have nothing whatsoever to do with road safety - the police lifted the lid on that one themselves when they threatened to fine motorists for flashing their headlights to warn each other of the presence of camera vans. They defended themselves by pointing to Section 89 of the 1996 Police Act:

"Any person who resists or willfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.”

If the purpose of the camera van is to improve road safety in high-risk areas by getting people to slow down as they always claim, then warning other motorists of its presence can hardly be said to constitute 'willful obstruction'. But if the purpose is to catch as many people as they can and collect the fines.

Every police force and every officer will have their own views on this. When I did do prolaser speed enforcement years ago  i was next to a liveried car in high Viz on an open stretch I had no issue with headlight flashing. After all I'm sure the motorist was merely informing other of his presence on the road. As long as the speeds dropped I had happy locals, In most cases it was l the local community complaining about speed and they were usually the ones getting the tickets and responded with 'but officer we only meant the issues was with those travelling through'. They wouldn't complain for a while after. On the point of the local press its a good idea to get things sorted. We have loads of the led flashing 30 signs by us it does give u a reminder and there is no excuse for not slowing down then.