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.
