I have a very limited facebook account these days for local groups only, including one for the "village" I live in. This village is becoming a rat run for neighbouring areas to cut through to the bypass and with a longish, straight road the temptation for speeding is high, and rife.
The local facebook group has taken to warning people when Police are in situ with their speed guns. I, along with others, have pointed out that this is counterproductive. Just because "we" live here, shouldn't afford us the privilege of being able to speed, or not get caught, on our own doorstep - far from it IMO.
Of course, others take a different view to the extent that the moderator has run a poll asking whether it should be allowed within the forum and guess what? It's running at nearly 50/50.
All is to say, I thought it was illegal to forewarn others of a mobile speeding camera. I sometimes get flashed by other cars coming the other way, to find a police van round the corner and had heard that you'd get pulled up for that if caught.
The parallels of wider society with this confined example are just pressing my buttons 😐
Do the police still have to state where they will be monitoring?
Definitely illegal. The advance notification on social media prevents the police from effectively undertaking their duties. This is an offence.
Is there a question in there or are you venting the the other half of the village don’t agree with your viewpoint
I think the key thing is to slow drivers down, so those providing a warning will achive that.
The rest is a storm in a tea cup.
I agree with you. If one of yours is hit by a speeding motorist, how can you complain if you have aided them in speeding by warning them of speed traps. If they get caught, next time they might stick to speed limit and it could save a life. Maybe one of yours.
I thought it was illegal to forewarn others of a mobile speeding camera.
North Yorkshire police post the locations of theirs.
They're safety cameras not speeding cameras, the idea being to slow people down (hopefully permanently, by virtue of reminding people to pay attention to their speed and the limit, reinforced by the risk of being caught) not to catch people and issue tickets.
If Facebook posts actually slow people down its working.
FWIW I wouldn't and don't warn people but tomato tomatoe (edit, mainly as I'd like them caught and fined, which requires they are speeding rather than slowing down. That likely says a lot more about me than anything else)
Flashing a warning about a speed camera isn't a specific offence but you could be charged for breaching the highway code that covers use of headlights or section 87 about obstructing a police officer in their duty. Both are very difficult to prove so more likely just used to pull you over and give you a bollocking/warning than you end up being prosecuted for it.
Many many years ago I recall a story of someone flashing an unmarked car going the other way just after a speed trap and getting pulled for it and prosecuted for interfering with a police operation or some such. Only a hazy recollection of it and it may be urban myth but I'm with you it's moronic behaviour.
I don't do speeding but regardless of that if you're not sharp eyed enough to spot the van yourself then you're not competent to go that fast. They're usually blasted great things with dayglo checkerboard and speed camera signs all over them.
PS our local Facebook group is full of similar idiocy.
It's fine for the police to forewarn of their locations. It's not fine for the public do to so. It's nothing to do with whether the traffic slows or not. It's whether the action of forewarning is affecting the police officers' ability to undertake their duties.
Someone who isn't speeding isn't effected by it.
Someone who IS speeding should slow down.
IF they dont know/see a speed camera, they wont slow down, thereby continuing on causing a danger to all, and subsequently getting a fine.
IF they do know the camera is there, and slow down, they immediately adjust their behaviour and the danger to others is reduced. seems to me it achieves a better outcome.
The police in North Yorkshire publish their mobile camera locations in advance.
It’s all very well saying a warning slows people down, but it only slows people down on that particular day. The whole point of a mobile camera is that if people are aware they might potentially be there on any random day, they will be less likely to speed generally.
I think the key thing is to slow drivers down, so those providing a warning will achive that.
Yeah, fantastic - they'll slow down on the - what - one day every few months (unless the local force in question are significantly more bothered about speeding than mine) they see a warning on Facebook. Every other day, great, crack on!
EDIT: Imnotverygood beat me to it.
Fully agree with you on this one.
A few years ago, one of the local villages that has a long straight road through it at 30mph with derestricted at each end ran a campaign to get a more regular police or safety camera presence, they had stickers saying ‘30 in Worcestershire villages’ etc. One local lady who was apparently a supporter of the campaign was caught, three times, by the said increased presence and complained to the local force and got it into the local paper.
‘I never exceeded 35 mph, do I look like a boy racer?’was the quote
West Mercia police provided evidence that she had been further over the limit than she suggested. Much egg on face. But it appeared her attitude was exactly what you are suggesting, it was OK for locals.
Not illegal.
The purpose of the Safety Cameras is to reduce the speed of traffic, not to impose penalties or create an income.. By forewarning folk of their location, more folk slow down than would be penalised.
FWIW I'm currently a Moderator on a FB Group covering the A9 in the Highlands. We have 35,000 members, many of whom are police officers. The question has been raised there several times.
I'm constantly checking my FB as I enter rural villages to keep one step ahead of the police.
. It’s whether the action of forewarning is affecting the police officers’ ability to undertake their duties
The specific purpose of that duty is to slow traffic and improve safety so it doesn't interfere with it to encourage people to slow down by warning them. Quite the opposite.
As for "only on the day", seriously? I take it you've never seen traffic? Speed cameras (fixed or mobile) slow traffic for 30 yards, that's it, and even then only when they're there. The reason there's a move to average cameras is people just surf between them.
Definitely illegal. The advance notification on social media prevents the police from effectively undertaking their duties. This is an offence.
Apps such as Waze encourage users to share real time data about speed traps, if it's clearly illegal I wonder why they are being allowed to do this?
I don’t do speeding but regardless of that if you’re not sharp eyed enough to spot the van yourself then you’re not competent to go that fast. They’re usually blasted great things with dayglo checkerboard and speed camera signs all over them.
Or, like the location nearest to me, sat in a dip in the road watching the brow of the hill. By the time you've seen them, it's too late.
Let the authorities get some revenue.
I'd say its illegal based on Section 89.2 of the Police act 1996.
Summed up nicely here by Yak
It’s fine for the police to forewarn of their locations. It’s not fine for the public do to so. It’s nothing to do with whether the traffic slows or not. It’s whether the action of forewarning is affecting the police officers’ ability to undertake their duties.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/89
ianopo
Google maps (if you use it for your sat nav) gives you the location of mobile speed cameras now.
Derbyshire police publish the locations of there cameras. Not sure anyone bother to check though.
It’s running at nearly 50/50
You should sue them to stop counting, or carry on counting, or declare a vicotry, or not, or something.
Years ago my Dad got pulled over and a telling off for flashing a warning about a speed gun. His mates at the golf club had a great time telling everyone that he got done for flashing.
Ok, I’ll bite.
Or, like the location nearest to me, sat in a dip in the road watching the brow of the hill. By the time you’ve seen them, it’s too late
They’re in a dip. Past a blind brow. You
Can’t see them. There’s isn’t time to slow from a speed over the posted limit down to a legal speed.
I accept all of that is possible.
Why on earth do you think it’s safe to be driving like that approaching a blind spot on the road
There could be anything going on out of your view, or even something stopped in the road just over the brow. If you can’t trim a few miles off you speed in time how on Earth are you expecting to stop safely if you have to?
You might notice my well disguised opInion peeking through there: there is no excuse for speeding.
It’s just selfishness, or incompetence. Pick one.
How is forewarning people on social media affecting the officers ability to undertake their duties?
The officers duty is surely to sit at a roadside in a safe place checking the speed of traffic. I don’t see how people being alerted to their presence affects the officers ability to undertake their duties?
Are they actually police officers doing that job? I know a lot of areas use Safety Officers or some other similar job description. The aim of the cameras is to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. So how is advising other road users that a mobile speed camera is in a certain location an obstruction?
The important thing is that people either slow down or get caught and punished. The rights and wrongs of warning people is a distraction from the core issue.
This kind of FB nonsense is a great way of filtering out the local idiots to avoid in real life.
I've put the kettle on and opened some digestives.
Can't beat people arguing about speed limit enforcement.
Deep down, everyone knows speeding is stupid and selfish.
Just goes to show that a large number of people are stupid and selfish.
Forewarning may prevent a serial offender from getting caught and prosecuted. That is affecting the police officers' ability to carry out their duties.
The app Waze allows you to notify where cameras are, so any others using the app will get a warning too. You could argue that Waze is a social platform too.
Deep down, everyone knows speeding is stupid and selfish.
Just goes to show that a large number of people are stupid and selfish.
I’m not sure about the first bit - it seems to me that many think speeding is just fine, it’s not hurting anyone, after all they’re Good Drivers. Not like Other People at all. Those pesky cameras are out to get them, probably to make money.
As for the second part, yes, lots of them.
Yeah, it seems that Waze, or at the very least the forewarning users are in the wrong. Unenforceable though unless the police obtain information from Waze about who posted what and when.
Users are self-identifying on Facebook Groups.
Yeah - should be no problem pursuing them if the police choose to.
Put up a warning on FB yourself randomly but only when there isn't a radar, and ask others who don't want speeding cars through the vialage to do the same.
Which is basically what happens.
At 9:00, someone posts that there is a van at Kessock. At 12:00, someone posts that there is a van at Alness. At 15:00, someone posts that there is a van near Golspie. It's the same bloody van. No one ever posts to say "that's it gone away now".
Plus; you can't always be sure that every van has been reported.
Plus; the vans always use the same locations, so the locals know them all.
Plus; there are also Traffic cars patrolling.
The idea that notification of Camera Vans is a blank-cheque for speeding is completely wide of the mark.
@sockpuppet put your teeth away sweetie.
Why on earth do you think it’s safe to be driving like that approaching a blind spot on the road
Where did I say it was OK to speed?
All I did was point out that not all mobile cameras are easy to spot.
I’d say its illegal based on Section 89.2 of the Police act 1996.
IIRC the appeal court (in a case of Glendinning ?) said something to the effect of to prove that (with Flashing of lights) the prosecutor would need to show that the drivers being warned were speeding (in which case its not clear how the warning has caused an obstruction). That's ignoring the fact that many mobile speed camera vans will not be operated by constables.
Warning someone before they even get in the car is almost certainly not illegal. I'd have more of an issue if they were posting once they'd gone.
I'd prefer it was illegal and that the locations were not publicised so people were always thinking they might get caught if they drive like idiots - but that would need a change in political will. Until then its best that our laws are clear about what is, or is not, actually illegal.
Yeah, fantastic – they’ll slow down on the – what – one day every few months (unless the local force in question are significantly more bothered about speeding than mine) they see a warning on Facebook. Every other day, great, crack on!
Well if someone is driving stupidly fast on any other day you could "warn" them with your lights anyway? Or indeed there is presumably nothing to stop someone posting of FBook on any other day to say "saw police van parked at side of road - looks like they are setting up a speed trap, so slow down!"
@yak - I'm afraid you're wrong, and this has been tested in court.
Forewarning may prevent a serial offender from getting caught and prosecuted. That is affecting the police officers’ ability to carry out their duties.
Someone was prosecuted for exactly this and found not guilty. The legal decision was (in summary) that just because someone is forewarned and slows down, there can be no assumption that if they hadn't been forewarned they would have committed an offence, nor that the act of being forewarned was the sole reason that no offence was committed.
Forewarning may prevent a serial offender from getting caught and prosecuted. That is affecting the police officers’ ability to carry out their duties.
This is a neat summary of my thoughts.
Also, folk are very quick to complain about "outsiders" speeding through the village, but then the same folk are warning each other not to get caught. Very Trumpian.
Easy to sort. Just constantly report that there are cams everywhere. Motorists will slow down, and those that really don't want to will continue to speed, ignore the now irritating warnings and get caught when there really are cops.
I have found that standing on a roadside with a luminous jacket on leads to much braking and slowing.
Start walking the dog in a suitable luminous jacket:
@phil56 - I didn't know that. Dammit. Thanks.
I am in a speedwatch group. Our actions only result in letters being sent, drivers getting a police visit or getting registrations flagged up. We could provide an evidence base of car 'A' consistently speeding, but we couldn't prosecute. We could request a police speed check if our actions were not having an effect with the intention of catching car 'A'. In the event of forewarning then taking place, it would be interesting to know if our evidence base would allow for a successful prosecution of the forewarning.
doomanic
All I did was point out that not all mobile cameras are easy to spot.
Neither is a wee kid on a bike if you're going too fast.
*Sigh*
Again, I haven’t said it’s ok to speed...
All I did was point out that not all mobile cameras are easy to spot.
There's strict guidelines on speed camera placement. If they're 'hiding' them without you having sufficient line-of-sight to see them then they likely don't have sufficient line-of-sight to see you reliably either. Ie, it's an unlawful placement and a ticket unenforceable.
I am in a speedwatch group. ... We could provide an evidence base of car ‘A’ consistently speeding,
How are you measuring the speed of traffic, out of interest?
This stuff goes back years.
https://www.haynesmotormuseum.com/news/are-we-there-yet-saluting-patrolmen
If you believe the authorities (which I don't), speed cameras are a safety device - they are there to discourage speeding in known accident blackspots where speed might have been a contributing factor and prevent further accidents. They are not purely a source of revenue generation. They are not a punishment. They are a preventative measure to ensure our safety. That's why they are called safety camera partnerships not speed camera partnerhips.
That being the case, flashing your headlights at oncoming traffic warns them about an oncoming potential accident blackspot, not a 'speed camera' location. The fact that you were forwarned about the existence of said potential hazard by the presence of a 'speed camera' is neither here nor there.
If you believe that, the Police should be only too happy to sit by the side of the road all day and catch nobody speeding at all. They should not take issue with you warning oncoming drivers because they don't care about the punishment or the revenue. They are simply there to ensure our safety and if nobody is speeding, we can't get into danger.
Do I have an issues with excessive speeding? Yep. I live in a village where it takes place, I have a small child who is at risk walking down the pavement in the village. It creates excess noise. Do I speed myself? Despite the above, yes I do. I recognize that I am a hypocrite, and if I get caught speeding, it's a fair cop. But what really gets my goat is the general hypocrisy surrounding the whole issue. 'Speed cameras' are clearly there as a source of revenue, so please stop pretending they aren't Mr Plod. Most people speed. And if you get caught, you might be annoyed at yourself, but you have broken the law.
A few years ago now but yes, you can be prosecuted for warning others of a speed camera:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12115179
How are you measuring the speed of traffic, out of interest?
We have a council highways data loop in the road that we can access the results from, a sign post mounted indicator that moves location every 2 weeks (records all the speeds in a 2 week period) and when covid allows, teams of volunteers with the speed gun.
But I was more thinking that if a particular car was ignoring all the above and we consistently caught it on the hand-held gun, then we would try to escalate it.
A few years ago now but yes, you can be prosecuted for warning others of a speed camera:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12115179/blockquote >
Nearly ten years ago in fact, and there have been plenty of similar penalty notices issued since. However, the legal judgement I reference was this year and came about as a result of the confusion on the matter
My North Yorkshire traffic cop relation told me that it's mainly civilians maning the camera vans. They have two for safety reasons and they have no powers whereas a single operator will be police with powers of arrest.
Also around this area they have cameras with massive lenses and can pick you up from around a mile away. Well before you see them.
A few years ago now but yes, you can be prosecuted for warning others of a speed camera:
Further reading,
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t60365.html
Seems there's a near-identical prior case which didn't lead to a conviction. I've just read a discussion on PH and their conclusion was that we don't have sufficient details about the respective cases to ascertain why there was a difference in outcome.
One thing that I did notice is that he apparently represented himself. So it's entirely possible that he just rocked up in court as a grumpy old man rather than presenting a sensible and legally robust defence and they threw the book at him because they could.
@molgrips - that crossed my mind. I'll be posting that daily.*IF* the poll results allow it, of course.
This stuff goes back years.
The AA is a weird organisation. They don't have job titles like Team Leader or Manager, they assign lieutenants and sergeants and such.
I've done a few site visits at their head office, the first time I visited I got chastised for parking nose-first rather than tail-first in a parking bay, they wouldn't let me in the building past reception until I'd gone back out and turn it round.
Weird.
We have a council highways data loop [etc]
Right, cool. I've never come across civilians having access to such stuff before. How did you go about that, just lobbying the council?
Well, the other way round really. Our local council member suggested we form a group to look at speeding in the village and she would support us. The end goal is a communities highways scheme - redesigned roads, pavements, crossings, signage to make it a better environment for supporting lower speed limits. We needed data to support the design, so we were given access to the data loop and formed a community speedwatch group for the purposes of data gathering as well as the immediate effect of slowing speeds.
Following consultations, design, more consultation, we submitted our scheme and have got the funding in place for next financial year to get it built. So not there yet, but getting close.
There’s strict guidelines on speed camera placement. If they’re ‘hiding’ them without you having sufficient line-of-sight to see them then they <b>likely don’t have sufficient line-of-sight</b> to see you reliably either. Ie, it’s an unlawful placement and a ticket unenforceable.
urbanmyth that sees many people fighting low value fixed penalties in court and leaving with much higher costs. The clue is the word guidelines - any argument there is about who gets the money from a penalty not whether you were breaking the law. Plenty of places you can sit where nobody sees you before hand and you can clearly see them after they pass you (e.g. tucked in behind a bridge parapet). Many people go to court arguing various technical points about how the equipment was used, most leave with less money and more points than they went in with!
I’ve done a few site visits at their head office, the first time I visited I got chastised for parking nose-first rather than tail-first in a parking bay, they wouldn’t let me in the building past reception until I’d gone back out and turn it round.
Weird.
A very common requirement at high risk sites like chemical manufacturers.
The clue is the word guidelines
Well, that was my wording. To be honest though I'd have to look it up to be sure. It's a while since I last had cause to look into anything like this and stuff changes.
Using a speed gun in a manner which could compromise its accuracy should be contestable, though. To be clocked at 60 in a 30 when you're not actually speeding - which has happened to me, they were hiding round the corner shooting through two sets of railings - is clearly wrong.
@doomanic sorry, that was supposed to be read as an observation, not a go at you.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.
If you believe the authorities (which I don’t), speed cameras are a safety device – they are there to discourage speeding in known accident blackspots where speed might have been a contributing factor and prevent further accidents.
Studies have shown those boards that flash your speed back at you in green yellow or red depending on your speed in relation to the posted limit are just as effective as speed cameras. They don't generate any revenue though. Make of that what you will.
Speeding is one thing, Driving too fast for the conditions is another. Middle of the day, on an empty motorway doing 5mph over the limit is speeding. Driving through a village at the posted limit isn't speeding but at school leaving time on a rainy day is probably driving too fast for the conditions.
Simple solution to this:
All towns and villages should have blanket average speed cameras, at 25 or 20mph.
And I'm not a cycle lobby anti car nut. But the dominance [mindset] of the driver is a terrible, terrible, terrible situation. It's worse now with very distracted drivers in (stupid) SUV's that bypass pedestrian safety by labelling themselves trucks
Well, that was my wording. To be honest though I’d have to look it up to be sure. It’s a while since I last had cause to look into anything like this and stuff changes.
I'm saving you the trouble - there are absolutely no legal requirements on the sites of fixed or mobile speed cameras from the perspective of enforcement in the courts.
Using a speed gun in a manner which could compromise its accuracy should be contestable, though.
Of course there will be occasions when there is genuinely reasonable doubt about whether someone was speeding or not; but it certainly doesn't follow that "if I couldn't see them, they couldn't see me" and most other attempts at technical defences fail. I recon at least 1/2 of those which don't are because the magistrates got confused or the prosecutor was inexperienced and failed to ask the right question rather than because the person was actually right.
All towns and villages should have blanket average speed cameras, at 25 or 20mph.
I don't object to that in principle - but I can easily stay under 20 mph average due to the stop start nature of traffic but go over 30 or even 40 in places. Also anyone living, working, shopping, school drop offs between cameras would get an "escape" for the first/last bit of journeys which would eventually lead to them ignoring limits, whilst traditional enforcement would likely go elsewhere... if you want widespread change would be better just imposing limits or fines automatically from in car sensors.
if you want widespread change would be better just imposing limits or fines automatically from in car sensors.
+1
Moving enforcement to the endpoint never works.
solarider
Quite a lot of content in your post, the nugget below being particularly interesting.
‘Speed cameras’ are clearly there as a source of revenue, so please stop pretending they aren’t Mr Plod.
Chief Constables and Council Chief Execs have a joint responsibility for road safety in their respective areas. Councils set the speed limits and, traditionally, 'Mr Plod' enforces said limits. Increasingly, Safety Camera Partnerships undertake a similar role, primarily on major roads and via fixed sites, average speed camera zones, or mobile sites serviced by predominantly civilian operatives in vans.
Chief Constables and Local Authorities get not one penny from speed related fixed penalties, zero, zilch, nada, hee-haw, as all monies go to Central Government. There is no financial motivation whatsoever for either a Local Authority or Chief Constable to set or enforce speed limits.
It could be argued that as Central Government has a guiding role to play in coordinating Safety Camera Partnerships towards national consistency, that it does benefit financially from camera related fines. The problem with this argument is that government guidelines require a whole bunch of warning signs, Hi Viz camera casings & vans to encourage speeding motorists to slow down on approach to, or when passing through, the site. Many partnerships also publicise where their vans will be every day. None of this warning malarkey is a particularly profitable business model.
Camera Sites are actually located on sections of road with a significant speed related KSI (Killed / Seriously Injured) crash history. Numerous people literally will have to have died or suffered life threatening injuries before a site is authorised. Fixed sites and average speed camera zones are extremely expensive to set up and maintain as equipment must be approved, calibrated and regularly checked, so only some KSI sites actually get cameras.
Camera surfing can still occur between fixed sites but as the cameras are at the dangerous section and local drivers know where they are, those people, who were actually speeding in the first place, slow down for the camera and don't get fined. More significantly, mean speeds through the entire length of average speed camera zones generally level out at just under the posted speed limit. From a revenue collection point of view, this is a very poor investment, with only a tiny percentage of motorists activating the cameras. From a road safety point of view, they are a great success, with KSI figures generally dropping by about 2/3rds at operational sites. That's 67% of people who would otherwise have been killed or injured, just carrying on with their lives. It's almost as if these aren't a 'source of revenue' at all and are in fact safety cameras deployed to stop people killing themselves or each other.
Two key things for me:
1)If you can't do the time don't do the crime. Its easy not to be caught speeding - do not do it
2) there is a time and a place for speeding. Choose wisely and remember rule 1)
Chief Constables and Local Authorities get not one penny from speed related fixed penalties, zero, zilch, nada, hee-haw, as all monies go to Central Government. There is no financial motivation whatsoever for either a Local Authority or Chief Constable to set or enforce speed limits.
Completely defeats the "it's a revenue generating" excuse brilliantly.
And frankly, I don't care if enforcing a law intended to increase the safety of me and other road users does become a revenue generating exercise. It's a tax on the stupid. And I've paid it a couple of times myself.
If roads policing was self funding they'd probably be safer places to cycle.
Downshep - sounds like we violently agree. If ‘safety’ cameras are indeed there purely as a safety measure (which is where perhaps we do diverge slightly) and nobody benefits from either the punishment or the revenue then flashing oncoming traffic to warn of their presence is merely a way of keeping others safe. Using an expensive van which has to be driven around and permanently staffed (apparently by 2 occupants) is seemingly just an elaborate and public spirited way of warning us about upcoming accident black spots. I am sure that most drivers passing one think to themselves ‘thank goodness for that kind reminder to keep me safe’.
Having said that, our village has suffered a number of fatalities with no speed cameras having been installed. When the parish council raised this with the county council we were told that traffic enforcement is in fact a matter for the police. Conversely the neighbouring village has an almost permanently manned ‘safety’ camera van parked in a 30 zone some 50 meters from a national speed limit zone where convictions are like shooting fish in a barrel and there have been no accidents. Thank goodness for that camera keeping us safe!
I also find it ironic that there is no preventative intent. Despite speed being an issue in known places, does there really have to be an accident before anybody will consider any form of ‘safety’ camera deterrent?
My thoughts:
A warning of a camera serves the purpose of speed reduction. If its a sporadicaly deployed camera then how many of the locals may have never seen it? They now know that the road in question is (occasionally) enforced and are more likely to keep the speed down in future.
Presence of a warning is no guarantee there is a camera there (as mentioned above, nobody posts once its left)
Conversely, absence of a post is no guarantee of absence of the camera.
If someone said "vans gone now so fill your boots, I just did 127, who can beat me?" then that I would have an issue with.
I think most Forces in the country actually publish where the cameras will be and roughly when. For example:
https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/about/safety-camera-partnership
Looking at from a pragmatic point of view, flashing someone to advertise a camera van actually serves the same purpose of the van’s presence & publishing the timetable of enforcements. It slows people down. Those who are gonna speed will speed no matter what. One of the most startling truths of Police work is captured in the phrase “they’ll come again”. Meaning offenders of most types are serial offenders, and they just can’t help themselves from doing whatever they’re doing; as a cop you’ll always get another chance to catch them. Sadly, some people get hurt in the meantime.
It’s funny that some people will agonise over whether they’ve been caught on a speed camera and try everything they can to either justify their speeding or wriggle out of the penalty, yet seemingly rarely stop driving over the speed limit whenever an opportunity arises.