Scumbag

Stopwatch timings are impossible over anything other than long distances.

Having (a good few years ago) sprinted at a reasonable level, I know how inaccurate the average Joe Bloggs is at timing. Over 100m 0.2-0.3 is the average amount that timing is actually out (always faster than real time). People tend to anticipate too much (and hence all the Gary Linekar/other footballer has run 10.5 in boots on a grass track cr*p)
Multiply the error factor up to car speeds (probably three times faster)then it makes a big difference

Tim Skerry

I don't want to seem harsh, but we all know that speedometers only ever over-read, so it is almost certain that if they got you at 37mph, the indicated speed was at least 40*. I guess I feel that sticking to 20 and 30 limits in residential areas is much more important than keeping to 70 on clear dual carriageways, or 60 when overtaking a lorry on a single carriageway A road.
Maybe that is because in 20 and 30 limits you cannot assume children won't do something stupid and I would rather stop than hit one whose ever fault it was.

*I think there is info on the sidc pages on the accuracy of subaru speedos, and they certainly are no more accurate than most other cars. It is probably safe to assume it over-reads by somewhere in the vicinity of 10%.

Gary Foster

Obviously I don't know the conditions etc for this particular case, so not aimed at anyone, however,

As a *complete* generalisation, speeding in a 30mph limit is bad. A 30mph limit is there as it is a built up area where there is a lot if likely hood of people crossing the road, kids or animals running out unexpectedly.

It is far far worse IMHO to be doing 37mph in a 30 than 80 or 90 mph (or even more conditions allowing) on a Motorway.

Before I get flamed, I am well aware that a lot of roads are seemingly 30mph limits, even though they aren't built up etc, I am also no angel myself having 8 points - but I am really trying not to speed in built up areas any more.

Gary

mark.coleman

After reading the replies to this, I can say I do agree with the vast majority of the points you have made. The reason I have written is that I know the road and where the cameras are, so I was in a position to take care. My point was that I was just thinking of other things at the time and there is a difference to remembering where the cameras are (we all usually remember to slow down for built up areas and cameras) in comparison to a person suddenly launching themselves if front of you, a speed camera is not going to help the situation of a child from running out between park cars for example. A car will also stop quicker from 37, as apposed to 80-90 mph, again these are different circumstances. If the government held propper discussions on the subject, rather than taking opinions of pompus **** tw*ts who are chauffeured around, painted the stupid things orange, which the average eye would see quicker, didn't place sneeky vans with cameras in unsuspecting places. Then wonder why the general public see these as a money spinning scandel.

Mark

boomer

Mark,

Setting GATSOs to trigger at 37mph in a 30mph zone sounds a bit (lot) like revenue generation (ACPO guidelines suggest a MINIMUM of 10% plus 2mph, but the threshold is normally FAR higher!).

It is probably best to take the fine "on the chin" and be more careful in future. Oh, and consider joining the

polarbearit

Ok, I see everyone's point about speed and 30 mph zones, but going back several years I was nicked at 43 in a 30 zone, the speedo said 40 and no higher. It was 10 pm on a road on a Dual Carriage Way, no pedestrians (ever) and no road works, not long before the speed limit had been dropped from 40 to 30 for no real reason, other than a that road about 1 mile further goes to past shops etc, and rather than drop the speed before the shops, they made the whole dual carriageway 30

Anyway I took the 3 points and £40 fine, the police officer said it would be much higher if I went to court. Looking back I wish I had gone to court as there were extenuating circumstances and the correct procedure was not followed by the police!

Now to speedos, We have two cars in the house, 1 a Citroen ZX, Only At 34 mph on the speedo, this sets of the automated speed sign near us (set for a 30 zone). Driving at an indicated 30 in the Scooby sets off the same sign, not all impreza speedo's read the same. I often used to have use of a pool car, Peugeot 306 (pretty much the same as a ZX) and yet this would also trigger the speed sign at 30, but the VW sharan I have also had use of didn't trigger it until 35!

What does that prove - Not a great deal, but similar cars can have differently calibrated speedo's etc!

Jon

Jon

EvoDevo

You're just the sort of prat that the advert is trying to reach. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Veracocha:
<B>Good point, I hate that advert. It places absolutely no responsibility on the person in the <I>ROAD</I>. With cars that stop like ours you can literally stop in half the distance that these clueless w@nkers claim.

I find it staggering that people are fined for doing 37 in a 30.

Type R,

It is better to go to court rather than recieve your judgement by mail. You always get a lighter punishment by making an appearance.[/quote]

The Saint

Just got off with a tounge lashing after being caught doing 54 in a 30.

Told them that "this was the first time I had caught speeding".

They are not all ****ers.

The Saint

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by C h a z:
<B>I've just sent off all my details to the court for the small matter of pulling away from an unmarked car, I got done for 107mph in a 70mph limit. I will let you know how I get on.
Whats the thing that you are supposed to receive before 14 days?[/quote]
gutted for you, i got stung on a sunday afternoon on the M27 into Portsmouth. 112mph on the 70 limit. Copper in question was an arrogant **** and gleefully took the time to explain how my licence is `toast` and that they`ll thow the book at me blah blah blah. Kept my cool throughout and made the appearence in magi`s though. took a brief with me and got 14days exclusion and a £200 fine. lucky b4astid is the word on the street round here!!
seriously though, over a ton is a ban, it just depends on the beak that day and letter from the employer etc etc
last week I also got a SP30 for 37 in a thirty, was overtaking a dust cart that stopped. its easy to slate the limits and beat your gums til they bleed, but at the end of the day the choice is yours and I know that I will make every effort to stay within the limits for the next 3 years!!
if you can afford it, always always take representation into the court, them duty solicitors can be ****.

alter_ego

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mike Rainbird:
<B>
If they wanted to avoid hitting that child, then they shouldn't have disconnected the rear brakes - would have made the car stop a LOT more quickly....
I [...] think we should all complain to the <I>advertising standards</I> to get it banned for wrongful advertising (as in the brakes on the rear are disconnected).
[/quote]
Not <I>Advertising Standards</I>, but the ITC (Independent Television Commission) is who you want. They helpfully provide an internet complaints submission form, here:

Mike Tuckwood

The information included in this advert is misleading in the extreme. There have been government studies (Transport Research Laboratory), proving that most accidents are caused by pedestrians and with that in mind this advert contravenes your own guidelines.

&gt;<I> mITC Code of Advertising Standards & Practice:
Misleadingness
24

In particular:

(ii) scientific terms, statistics, quotations from technical literature and the like must be used with a proper sense of responsibility to the ordinary viewer. Irrelevant data and scientific jargon must not be used to make claims appear to have a scientific basis they do not possess. Statistics of limited validity must not be presented in such a way as to make it appear that they are universally true. Advertisements must not seek to exploit public ignorance or to perpetuate popular misconceptions.</I>

Also in support of this, I dispute the figures for the extra stopping distance as quoted. The car in the advert had apparently had its rear brakes disconnected(?) and also would doubt that a modern car (ABS has been on cars for around 15 years now) would not have produced results anywhere near those quoted.

I would be interesed to see the INDEPENDANT test results and the criteria used to achieve these results.

It supports a popular myth (again a breach of you guidelines), that speed is the cause of accidents.

I would like to see independant statistics also that support the fact that there is sufficient basis that all accidents involving pedestrians (including children) are sufficient in quantity to warrant the inferrance (supporting the popular myth again), that all pedestrians hit by cars in a 30mph zone must have been speeding!


Mike Tuckwood.

Well let's see what that generates. Interestingly enough, I noticed that upon submitting the complaint, the acceptance message thanks you for registering your "suggestions" and not "complaint"?

polarbearit

Complaint registered...

I also suggested that perhaps a factually accurate ad would say, 'Speed, A factor in 6% of accidents'

Lets hope we get a reply.

Jon

alter_ego

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sasman:
<B>They give fine, points, to the registered owner you don't get off, that is unless you a lying COPPER. [/quote]

mutant_matt

I've just added my bit. I nicked Mike's excellent piece (sorry Mike, hope you don't mind, and added to it). Anybody want to "borrow" mine, you're more than welcome.

**************************

The information included in this advert is misleading in the extreme. There have been various government studies (TRRL), proving that most accidents involving a vehicle and a pedestrian, are caused by pedestrians and with that in mind this advert contravenes your own guidelines.

In particular:

(ii) scientific terms, statistics, quotations from technical literature and the like must be used with a proper sense of responsibility to the ordinary viewer. Irrelevant data and scientific jargon must not be used to make claims appear to have a scientific basis they do not possess. Statistics of limited validity must not be presented in such a way as to make it appear that they are universally true. Advertisements must not seek to exploit public ignorance or to perpetuate popular misconceptions.

Also in support of this, I dispute the figures for the extra stopping distance as quoted. The car in the advert had apparently had its rear brakes disconnected (presumably for the purposes of sensationalism) and also I would doubt that the average modern car would not have produced results anywhere near those quoted not withstanding the fact that the average modern "family" car is now fitted with ABS (anti-lock braking system). This perpetuates the myth surrounding stopping distances as the figures still quoted by various bodies are still based on a vehicle from the 1960's.

I would be interested to see the Independent test results that this advert is based on and the criteria used to achieve these results.

It supports a popular myth (again a breach of you guidelines), that speed is the cause of accidents when in fact that studies carried out by the Government's own laboratory (the TRRL) states that speed was a possible cause in only 6% of accidents and a definite factor in only 3% of accidents.

I would like to see independent statistics also that support the fact that there is sufficient basis that all accidents involving pedestrians (including children) are sufficient in quantity to warrant the inference (supporting the popular myth again), that all pedestrians hit by cars in a 30mph zone must have been speeding!

I would much rather the message be put across that inattention is the biggest cause of all accidents and the emphasis be put on educating pedestrians (and in particular, children) about the dangers of crossing the road and make these people take responsibility for themselves rather than transferring this onto the motorist.

*********************

Ta,

Matt

BarryK

For goodness sake, get it off your chest. The bloke is not a "lying copper".

He said, as we are all entitled to do, that he wasn't sure if it was him driving, so could he please see the video/camera evidence.

Plod couldn't be ar$ed to provide it, so no further action. This might happen to any of us so caught. They'd rather use the time to process another 50 fines than monkey around providing evidence. Simple business logic, if it doesn't make more money in the time it takes to divest another punter of their hard earned, don't do it.

The only scandal here is one of "insider dealing" in that he knew what force policy was, and that he was 99% certain to get away with it.

It is a legitimate request for anyone to make and he did not say he "would refuse" to name who was driving at the time. Quite the opposite in fact. "Show me and I'll tell you".

Veracocha

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by EvoDevo:
<B>You're just the sort of prat that the advert is trying to reach. [/quote]

What because you know me? The advert has a valid point but I'll be a prat when I have a car that locks up like that, and I'll be even more of a prat if I keep my foot on the brake like that. If the advert reaches me, what is the point? I wouldn't speed on a busy road during the day anyway. My point is that whoever got caught doing 37 in a 30 was probably doing it late at night or when the conditions allowed, not when there were kids running about. I'm all for speeding enforcement where it is needed for safety, not money.

mark.coleman

After posting this thread requesting other people feelings and experiences on this, I'll point out that when I got caught doing the assumed 37mph, it was sunny, extreamly quiet and I knew the road, as I was on my way to get the car serviced and had no need to rush. There's too much guilty as found with these things, they should include a questionaire with the relevant offence for you to detail the reasons for the infringement.

SJobson

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by mark.coleman:
<B>I was on my way to get the car serviced and had no need to rush.[/quote]

Funny, Mark, I've never been nicked for speeding before, but last night I was flashed by a Truvelo (forward-facing) camera at about 37 in a 30 - barriered urban dual carriageway in Luton. Obviously there's no guarantee I'll get an NIP, but I'm expecting one, on the basis that these new cameras don't run out of film, etc.

What's galling is that I was pootling along, had picked up my stepkids in Daventry, trundled down the M1 at 60-70, and had been driving perfectly safely. But because I hadn't been speeding, my concentration wasn't on checking my speed all the time, hence I allowed it to wander upwards.

I'm as gutted as you, but I think I'm going to take it on the chin. Mind you, I'll make sure I see the evidence first (even if only to find out what sort of pics these clever new cameras take).