Forum menu
i got done last year for doing 90mph in a 70mph (i was in a rush to get to brize norton) i got offered the speed class thing and it was good,
made me think twice before speeding again. and i drive a bit slower now and think twice when i look down and see 75 on the speedo.
the class was like a AA meeting, i stood up and said "hi my name is shaun, im 23, soldier in the british army and i drive a citroen c2 GT."
Cameras allow the cops to catch speeders woo hoo, up goes their detection rates, whilst uninsured, phone using drivers aren't caught because the cops in cars who might have caught them have been replaced with revenue cameras.
Alternatively: cameras take care of catching the speeders, freeing up the traffic police to concentrate on other offences, such as uninsured and dangerous drivers, while also increasing the amount of revenue available to fund the police.
Most of the speed cameras I know of are set up where there are no real road safety issues
Really? Because most areas require a given number of incidents or fatalities to occur before a camera can be placed.
hi my name is shaun, im 23, soldier in the british army and i drive a citroen c2 GT
brave of you to admit driving a c2 in public, but I suspect you can handle yourself 😉
it [u]was[/u] a nice car when i got it and was quite nippy 8)
i am going to sell it when i get back from tour and get a volvo V70 T5/R unless i can find a 850 T5R.
Really? Because most areas require a given number of incidents or fatalities to occur before a camera can be placed.
+1
And I learned that on a speedchoice course. Another example of somebody just making up shit to support an argument.
Alternatively: cameras take care of catching the speeders, freeing up the traffic police to concentrate on other offences, such as uninsured and dangerous drivers
If only that was the case - the reality seems to be that the cops spend just as much time workign on speeding, whilst there are also less of them.
Really? Because most areas require a given number of incidents or fatalities to occur before a camera can be placed.
Only if they want to keep the profits from the camera (rather than them going straight to central government). In any case, you should check out the actual rules - the incidents don't need to be at the camera location, just within a given distance, and they don't need to be speed related. The former allows them to put a camera on the bypass safely taking traffic away from the urban area next door where there have been incidents. For the latter IIRC for one camera location one of the required incidents was somebody getting injured falling over on a moving bus.
Of course the point can be immediately disproved by various brand new roads which have cameras on before they open.
Speed cameras are set up where there have been accidents although sometimes the definitions are stretched. However they are revenue neutral generally. No great profits or losses made and any revenue accrued goes it more traffic safety measures.
anyway - why not make money of people who break the law. Seems reasonable to me.
It all goes back to - if you don't want to get caught speeding don't speed.
2 counties in England don't have fixed speed cameras, Co Durham & North Yorkshire, Durham has 1 mobile unit - not sure about N Yorks.
The Chief Constable of Durham doesn't believe they reduce accidents preferring traditional methods of policing
Guess which 2 counties are at the top of the league for reducing road deaths over recent years?
Hampshire's pretty light on fixed speed cameras (can't think of one except in Southampton and Portsmouth, which are unitary authorities, so different, I think).
There's an accident blackspot waiting to happen in our street as people regularly speed past it but we can't have a speed trap until there have been the 'requisite number of accidents'.
Don't make me laugh...
Thanks for the replies. Like I said in my first post, I was just looking to know when I should expect a letter.
The copper was using a handheld gun about here (by the stop sign with his car parked well up the side road for obvious reasons):
[url] http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=51.315466,-0.59839&spn=0,359.990355&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.315664,-0.598701&panoid=WrJNJwxRXlqbX1eHd7TQAw&cbp=12,12.91,,0,13.31 [/url]
To be honest I'm not sure why it's a 30 zone (rather than 40) - guess because there is a school nearby (note it was 10pm when I was zapped not 8.45am!).
Good point on the speedo, like I say it was an indicated 38 ish, so probably really a 33/34 (but who knows as I've not calibrated the thing with a GPS).
I bet you are OK. Lucky
Good point on the speedo, like I say it was an indicated 38 ish, so probably really a 33/34 (but who knows as I've not calibrated the thing with a GPS).
The hand held unit would most likely have read low due to cosine error, 25 degrees off angle gives 10% lower reading which added to the likely 'juice factor' of your speedo makes 38mph well within the 10% + 2mph guidance for even cautioning a driver for speeding.