Thanks for the warning.

[mjw47]

How many warnings would you say should be sufficient before a £60 fine should kick in?

 

One, being let off from what is an offence whether you agree or not, should be accepted as a decent gesture from the authorities. Should you choose to ignore the warning & persist in speeding & are caught again within 12 months then fine & points.

 

Three years ago I offered to take someone to Leeds airport. On the way I drove down Kirkstall road. This road is a duel carriageway & on the section which I was on there are no private houses. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour except at intervals it drops to 30 mph. That is because there are side roads leading into Trading estates, & during normal working hours vehicles are leaving & joining the road at those points. The actual road does not differ in anyway as regards it's construction.

 

You know what's coming next . I was caught on camera doing 39 miles per hour on a 30 section. OK no problem, I was doing it & paid the penalty.

Only thing which annoyed me somewhat was that it was 6.05 am on a Sunday morning.

There was virtually no other vehicles around & all the shops, offices & trading estates were closed.

Therefore I was causing no danger to anyone & was under the speed limit designated for the road.

 

Not looking for sympathy here, technically I was at fault, no argument.

However when the Police come out with all this 'Safety' nonsense I'm afraid it doesn't convince me.

[Mr_Squirrel]

Where can I start, should I bother even?

Well, yes, I can't let such a load of made-up drivel pass without being challenged since some poor sod will suffer injury through one of the readers here believing this bilge.

 

 

It is not suspicious that more and more courses are being offered since it comes a direct result of a review decades ago that fines and points alone don't work. The courses are intended as an educational alternative to those that might benefit from a refresher.

 

The difference in stopping or not stopping (no impact or impact) between 30 and 35 (let alone 36) is a massive 18 mph impact according to the test scenario shown on a video in some speed courses. "Test" scenario since the driver in the video has perfect knowledge of when to brake and the road surface is flat, dry and high-grip so the impact on real roads with real, unsuspecting drivers will be far worse.

So please don't peddle any lies around that suggest the difference is around walking pace. Instead, revisit O level Physics.

6 mph is not walking pace, by the way. That's a jog. 4mph is a very brisk walking pace.

The Force does not get or keep any part of a speeding fine. The Treasury does and increasingly holds on to them, having cut the Road Safety grants. Neither does the SCP. SCP's are hardly rolling in the cash either, hence some of them disbanding and cameras being switched off, often leaving the local "Force" holding head in hands.

Any monies coming back to the SCP's from speed courses are ring-fenced (and expenditure is audited) for local road safety projects (e.g. 20 zones, limits around housing estates).

 

And since you mention "real" speeders, have you thought through the messages that you and others put about could act as encouragement to those that drive around housing estates like idiots? After all, their speeding has no effect, well no more serious than "walking pace", according to you.

 

First of all, my post was an opinion of my suspicions. If you regard that as 'made up drivel', you may be correct but i did make clear that it was 'suspicion'.

Secondly, How can there have been a review 'decades ago' when camera use has only been in common use for less than 2 decades?

Thirdly, i never claimed that 'real' speeders dont have any effect. I claim that cameras (Both mobile and fixed) dont have any effect against those who speed at excessively high speeds through areas with no deterrent.

 

Interesting though that you make the point about several forces switching off the cameras... Swindon i believe was one area that turned off their cameras a year or two ago (IIRC) and reported 'little/no change' in traffic behaviour and accident rates.

 

You are correct in your obvious belief that points/fines/courses are the required 'punishment' for those caught speeding. Dont speed, dont get caught, simple as that.

I am still of the opinion though that speed cameras are a 'cash cow'..... a 'tax' on motorists and do little to improve road safety.

Periodical re-testing at an advanced level to the 'L' test is the way forward IMO.

[DT Ralge]

One, being let off from what is an offence whether you agree or not, should be accepted as a decent gesture from the authorities. Should you choose to ignore the warning & persist in speeding & are caught again within 12 months then fine & points.

 

Three years ago I offered to take someone to Leeds airport. On the way I drove down Kirkstall road. This road is a duel carriageway & on the section which I was on there are no private houses. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour except at intervals it drops to 30 mph. That is because there are side roads leading into Trading estates, & during normal working hours vehicles are leaving & joining the road at those points. The actual road does not differ in anyway as regards it's construction.

 

You know what's coming next . I was caught on camera doing 39 miles per hour on a 30 section. OK no problem, I was doing it & paid the penalty.

Only thing which annoyed me somewhat was that it was 6.05 am on a Sunday morning.

There was virtually no other vehicles around & all the shops, offices & trading estates were closed.

Therefore I was causing no danger to anyone & was under the speed limit designated for the road.

 

Not looking for sympathy here, technically I was at fault, no argument.

However when the Police come out with all this 'Safety' nonsense I'm afraid it doesn't convince me.

 

Question for you:

- at what time on a Sunday morning does 39 in a 30 become wrong/unsafe/justifiably an endorsable offence?

What tells you or anyone else?

How can "society" or the authorities deal with "it's ok now but later it won't be" situations? Do you have any idea/proposal on this?

Were you in a day-dream, missed the limit (and the camera), ignored your speedo, picked the wrong gear, so got ticketed or did you think "do your worst" when you spotted the camera?

Just wondered.

[mjw47]

Question for you:

- at what time on a Sunday morning does 39 in a 30 become wrong/unsafe/justifiably an endorsable offence?

What tells you or anyone else?

How can "society" or the authorities deal with "it's ok now but later it won't be" situations? Do you have any idea/proposal on this?

Were you in a day-dream, missed the limit (and the camera), ignored your speedo, picked the wrong gear, so got ticketed or did you think "do your worst" when you spotted the camera?

Just wondered.

 

Did I make any suggestions regarding any of that? I was merely pointing out that in that particular set of circumstances the 'safety' reason invariable given by the Police did not apply.

No I wasn't 'daydreaming' I was paying close attention to other road users as few as they were, & keeping my eye on the road ahead whilst checking my mirrors from time to time.

 

I passed my driving test in January 1966 & have driven over 1.25 million miles since then. For many years I averaged between 45,000 & 55,000 miles per year, those miles were accumulated in order for me to carry out my actual job.As a result of this, I have virtually no interest whatsoever in driving for the sake of it. My intention when sitting into a car is simply to get from A to B as quickly & safely as possible.

 

Incidentally in those 47 years I have been involved in exactly 4 accidents only one of which was - mainly - my fault, & speed was not a factor in that particular incident.

 

As you have raised the question as to how the authorities could deal with changing road conditions my answer would be 'quite simply'.

When you drive along a motorway you may have noticed overhead display screens? These warn of possible problems ahead & also from time to time impose a different speed limit to the standard one.

 

These could be extended to the A roads throughout the country & this would be a genuine safety measure as standard speed limits could be lowered in cases of poor weather conditions etc.

 

Obviously that would mean using some of the enormous monetary gain taken from the motorist & using it to actually help the motorist. This appears to be against Government/Local Authority policy, judging by the state of the roads in this region.

[DT Ralge]

First of all, my post was an opinion of my suspicions. If you regard that as 'made up drivel', you may be correct but i did make clear that it was 'suspicion'.

Secondly, How can there have been a review 'decades ago' when camera use has only been in common use for less than 2 decades?

Thirdly, i never claimed that 'real' speeders dont have any effect. I claim that cameras (Both mobile and fixed) dont have any effect against those who speed at excessively high speeds through areas with no deterrent.

 

Interesting though that you make the point about several forces switching off the cameras... Swindon i believe was one area that turned off their cameras a year or two ago (IIRC) and reported 'little/no change' in traffic behaviour and accident rates.

 

You are correct in your obvious belief that points/fines/courses are the required 'punishment' for those caught speeding. Dont speed, dont get caught, simple as that.

I am still of the opinion though that speed cameras are a 'cash cow'..... a 'tax' on motorists and do little to improve road safety.

Periodical re-testing at an advanced level to the 'L' test is the way forward IMO.

 

The review (http://www.shlow.eu/documents/Ian%20Aspinall%20Driver%20rehabilitation.pdf) was in 1988 and ended up with (for many force areas) the first of several educational alternatives to fines and points (National Driver improvement Schemes -NDIS).

Speed courses, you are right, followed a little later but the marker for education was put down in the 1988 pilot and ensuing report that ended with full-blown NDIS/NDAC, red-light, phone and DD courses, so that's why I wrote "decades ago".

 

Those that speed excessively through areas with no deterrents would probably do that everywhere and are possibly uncontrollable. They are given succour, however, by anyone who spreads the "scamera" side of the argument. So those scamera proponents need to be wary of the company they are keeping.

 

Oxford turned theirs off after Swindon but then re-jigged the economics of the cameras and turned them back on quite quickly because, after the turn-off, speed choices had been measured as going the wrong way to the concern of the authorities.

 

Derbyshire's CREST (Casualty Reduction ... ) website shows the overall effect of fixed and mobile camera sites across the county. Not every site has succeeded in reducing KSI's/PIC's but, across the board/averaged out, the cameras hav contributed clearly to a significant reduction in the figures for 3years before and after camera site installation/set-up.

 

Cameras bring in +/- £100 million into the Treasury's coffers - a huge sum of money between a few of us on here!

However, one road safety project local to us (A57 dualling from J31 of M1) has a budgeted cost of £17 million.

Another measure of the scale of the fines take by the Treasury is that the cancellation of the 3p per litre increase in fuel duty cost the Treasury £550 million.

 

So ALL the speeding fines add up to just 0.6 pence duty on a litre of fuel or just 6 short pieces of dual carriageway.

Hardly an effective way of raising cash, is it?

 

As for pressing for extra driver training, defensive, Advanced or whatever, that's music to my ears but there is no appetite for it to speak of. Only very rarely am I met with the words "I've been looking forward to this".

Driving and sexual prowess (don't be critical of my ability, my performance is fine, thanks very much) come to mind as the mindset. I don't see it changing any time soon, much as I'd like it to.

[Penistone999]

Given your lengthy history of boasting about your dreadful, selfish and sometimes illegal driving, that comes as no surprise.

 

What is dreadful and selfish about warning other motorists about a trap lurking up the road. ? You find me one motorists who isnt grateful of the heads up from other drivers telling them there is a scamera van round the corner.

 

Those scamera vans are used to make money from motorists ,and its a case of them and us ,and i make no apology for warning others when i pass a trap .

[Stan Tamudo]

What is dreadful and selfish about warning other motorists about a trap lurking up the road. ? You find me one motorists who isnt grateful of the heads up from other drivers telling them there is a scamera van round the corner.

 

Those scamera vans are used to make money from motorists ,and its a case of them and us ,and i make no apology for warning others when i pass a trap .

 

Coolamudo Desmundo. Stan's on the ball.

[Mr_Squirrel]

 

So ALL the speeding fines add up to just 0.6 pence duty on a litre of fuel or just 6 short pieces of dual carriageway.

Hardly an effective way of raising cash, is it?

 

That would be the spending of the cash.. Not the raising of it.

 

As for pressing for extra driver training, defensive, Advanced or whatever, that's music to my ears but there is no appetite for it to speak of. Only very rarely am I met with the words "I've been looking forward to this".

Driving and sexual prowess (don't be critical of my ability, my performance is fine, thanks very much) come to mind as the mindset. I don't see it changing any time soon, much as I'd like it to.

 

Unlike many on this forum, i wouldnt dream of criticising your driving (or sexual) ability unless you give me good reason to.. As yet, im not sure you have. and i have no desire to sleep with you.

What 'irks' me regarding speed cameras, especially mobile units, is the argument that its all about safety. I have seen cameras positioned in some really nonsensical areas and believe me, i have tried to see any logic in some of their positioning other than revenue. Furthermore, Mobile cameras.... Does the 'hazard' that they claim to deter 'speeders' against, suddenly up sticks and move away once the camera van has gone? Does it nelly!

There is also the road and weather conditions to take into account. A camera on a road (say) that has a 30mph speed limit in good, dry conditions does not differentiate between those conditions and maybe wet or icy conditions where 30mph may be suicidal madness. The limit remains the same in all conditions.

 

Im all for periodical driver re-assessment and education but i will never be 'for' cameras except in accident blackspots and in those cases, i expect the cameras to be fixed, highly visible and signposted in advance. Mobile camera units should be made illegal and replaced with an officer with a speed gun who can offer advice, a warning, a prosecution and most of all, common sense. There can be no argument about 'manpower'.. all mobile units are manned the same as a traffic officer with a hand held device but a human being with a hand held device cannot 'point, zap and prosecute' as many motorists as the mobile camera units.

When that happens, i may be convinced that the systems in place are for safety reasons above revenue.

[Resident]

To the two blokes driving towards me today who flashed to let me know of the speed trap further up the road.

I was fine, travelling under the limit but the bloke behind me had to slow down pretty sharpish.

Its a shame the police saw your act of kindness and decided to speed off and chase you down.

Hope they didnt catch either of you. Although i suspect the way they pulled out of their little hide away into oncoming traffic forcing it to stop and at the speed they were travelling (over 60 at a guess) im sure they had a good chance.

Thanks again lads.

It was a nice gesture

 

Speeding is against the law, so doing it makes you a criminal. Warning criminals of a police presence so that the evade capture is 'aiding and abetting' which then can be construed as 'attempting to pervert the course of justice.' Both offences under the law making you also a criminal, complicit in the primary offence. Oh and that's before we look at the driving offences pertaining to misuse of full-beam headlights.

 

So all of you that have admitted flashing to warning other drivers, I'll remind you of your admissions the next time you're in other threads complaining about criminals.

[Stan Tamudo]

...............................