T5OLF

iTrader: (4)

Have they nothing better to do with there time??

The shocking picture that shows police will do ANYTHING to hide speed cameras from unsuspecting motorists | the Daily Mail

pslewis

Are you saying that speeding motorists should not be caught? Or should be given notice that they may be caught? Or do you believe that the speed signs on every lampost are adequate notice?

Just interested ......... even though I do think it's sneaky, you've got to admire their ingenuity?

T5OLF

iTrader: (4)

I think if there is a problem with speeding/accidents they should put camera's up not hide in the back of a trailer catching people who stray over the limit by a few miles an hour.

Sonic'

This thread was done a few weeks ago

I have no issue with cameras thesedays, I have found out the hard way that its just best not to speed anymore

pslewis

My wife was caught doing 36 MPH and got done, so I am no great supporter of speeding fines for such small errors.

My interest was what you objected to, I guess it was that you consider it 'underhand'? ....... are you saying that speeding motorists should be given the chance to slow down past an obvious camera and then be allowed to speed again?

I drift over the limit now and again ....... I'll admit that and would feel annoyed if I got caught at 36 MPH in a 30. But, and this is the point, I only have myself to blame ......... no-one else.

PeteBrant

One question.


Given that these are supposed to be for safety reasons. How is hiding the camera away inside a horse box promoting a slower speed, in presumably an accident black spot?

If they catch lots of people speeding, then the horse box approach has failed entirely.

I'm willing to bet, at least my house, that a clearly visible camera, slows down far more people, than a hidden one.

SJ_Skyline

You were very annoyed when you got caught IIRC Peter.

"Why did I want to stop, get out the car and shove their toy right up their 4rses??"

SiPie

In NZ they simply hide cameras in ordinary parked cars and occassionally pay people to allow them to put said cars in their drives....

Agree with Pete

The law is clear

SJ_Skyline

SiPie, the law maybe clear but who says it's right?

Surely a law that many people break frequently is a bad law?

davegtt

The only reason the law is so frequently broke is because of how hard it is to police. The only real way of stopping people speeding is cameras or restricted cars, we have niether at the minute which is stopping the law being broke but with cameras at least we have a choice at what speed we drive at.

pslewis

I think that the FEAR of getting caught slows people down - not the sight of a Camera (although that does that of course, but only for 100 yards or so).

The very idea that every tree, horsebox, caravan, tractor, hedge, bike, street sign may contain a camera would make you abide to the speed limit at all times and therefore making the roads so much safer in the authorities eyes.

The rules really are clear ...... should a mugger be let off because he/she only stole 5p from the 95 year old grandmother they have just beaten up - but, if they stole £1million it would be 'reasonable' to lock them up? In the same way that speeding is speeding wherever the limit is broken.

As I keep saying ...... getting caught speeding is a right royal annoying thing to happen - but it is solely the drivers fault - no good blaming the cameras position!

Dream Weaver

The rules are clear, but they're not right.

We have empty stretches of road here with clear visibility, no buildings and no pedestrians and they have been reduced down from 60 to 50 to 30mph limits for no reason other than to make money.

70 on the motorways is ridiculous with todays modern vehicles.

pslewis

Just because the limits are not right, in others eyes, doesn't mean they are wrong.

Yes, some road limits have been reduced around our town and you do wonder why - in fact it is maddening that the limit and camera is operating at 2am on an empty road just as it is at 4pm when the road is chokerblock.

But, we all know what 'may' happen if we speed .......... the only way to avoid it is not to speed at all - yes, I find it impossible too - but it is an absolute law.

moff1888

He's illegaly parked....Issue that man a fine we have his plate and photo evidence.

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

When we used to live abroad, we lived just off the main road and the house was a fair distance from the hedge near the road. the police used to come and drive into our driveway and just hide behind the hedge. They wouldnt even ask our permission and it used to wind my mum up a treat. So we had a great dane and she would just open the back door and whisper....

Get em !!

They never came back

dpb

Also been done for '36' in a 30 by the mobile scamera brigade


- im afriad i just stick the cruise control whenever im in a 30 now and sometimes in a 40 as well

mamoon2

Pete, how can you compare "Mugging" to "Speeding"?

corradoboy

By automating the process you are more likely to be distracted. Similarly, paranoid drivers who daren't take their eyes off the speedo aren't looking at the road for hazards. As a professional and qualified driving instructor I can state that there are many people whom are unsafe at 29mph, or within any posted limit, and yet others I would feel safe with at 180mph. The Police used to exercise discretion in their enforcement, which unfortunately as they are only human (I think) was always open to some variance, but meant that those displaying the ability to drive well and safely above a posted limit may be left to get on with their journey, or maybe given a warning. Those whom drove dangerously, inconsiderately or just downright badly would be dealt with appropriately, you would hope. With the Police so single minded on a single offense, and the automated enforcement only capable of monitoring that single offense, bad driving is being left unchecked and the roads are becoming more and more dangerous. I spend 12 hours a day observing the drivers of this nation in a bid to keep things safe for my pupil and myself, and impart as much knowledge and experience as possible in the brief time most people spend learning to drive. Every day I am shocked by the falling standards and the increased danger we all face. If someone pulls out of a side street whilst I am doing 29mph, I am still likely to hit them. The fault is not what speed I was going, but the act of bad driving, speed simply makes it hard for me to avert and more serious when it does happen. If someone changes lane on a roundabout, it won't matter a jot if I'm under or over the limit. They'll possibly push me off the road due to bad driving. In the few accidents caused solely by speed where someone has lost control, the bad driving WAS the speed, but it is still bad driving which resulted in their bad judgement. A good driver would have assessed the situation better and slowed, so the speed is again a secondary and contributing factor.

The policy of allowing the Police to keep a proportion of the revenue collected is flawed, leading to overzealous enforcement based not on safety, discretion and improvement. Also, financial punishment does not really teach anyone anything, and certainly nothing more than they need to look at the big dial in the middle and relate it to the signs they can see out of the window. I'd like to see much more focus on bad driving, and the punishment to be less based on revenue and more on education. If a driver had to pay a small amount to cover the cost of policing, but then had to attend further compulsory training to assess and hopefully modify their behaviour then we may start to see an improvement.

PeteBrant

I'm not sure where you're going with this.



What I am saying is that a clear an present deterrent is far more likely to have an effect than an invisible one.

As an analogy, take a shopping centre that has "You are on CCTV" plastered all over the place, with highly visible cameras. Why is it doen this way? To prevent ccrime happening in the first place.

They don't hide the cameras and put up signs saying "no CCTV whatsoever!" in the hope they will catch lots of muggers, because the whole point is to prevent the crime in the first place.


Exactly the same principle applies with speed cameras. Thier purpose is to slow people down in accient black spots. What's the best way to do that? Have great big signs sayign "Speed cameras!" and lots of bright yellow boxes. Or hidden cameras in Horse boxes with no warning whatsoever - Which method is going to prevent the speeding in the first place?


Speed cameras that are hidden are revenue raisers (or target reachers), plain and simple, they do absolutely nothing to reduce speed in a given area.

dpb

Agree with you 100% .

Not sure using c/c is distracting - im certainly looking down the road for the other idiots ,instead of concentrating on the dash, whilst all the while being aware that somebody is invariably 2' from my rear bumper .

corradoboy

Agree ! When a teacher leaves the classroom for the briefest of moments, chaos usually descends very quickly. Much the same thing happens on the roads. In years gone by when travelling a long distance on a motorway, the tedium of the journey combined the the thrill and exhilaration of going quickly would lead you to make things a bit less boring. More often than not just as you got to an interesting speed you'd spot a highly visible Police car and you would immediately behave. Nowadays, what Police car there are are so often unmarked, which is like putting a 13yo teacher dressed in a hoodie and tracky bottoms at the back of the class to wait for the chaos to happen before doing anything about it. When they do pull someone, for the brief time they are at the roadside with their covert lights flashing, a semblance of order may resume, but as soon as the lights go out the deterrent is again lost. Covert automated cameras will be much the same, but there will be no period of order as there will be no visual deterrent. Just lots of money coming in !

dunx

iTrader: (3)

With so much H&S type sign-posting to distract the drivers attention, it's no wonder people get caught at 36 in a 30 limit, (me !) slapped wrist and a really good argument witha senior cop about, ability and reaction times....
I asked him "Your kid" vs me in STI, or little old lady in a w-reg Metro ?
He wouldn't answer.... guy next to me was a paramedic (trained driver !) GRR

DunxC

corradoboy

If the old lady's Metro has better tyres than what was on your car this weekend then the old biddy gets my vote

The Zohan

Wouldn't it be better used sat down near the docks with a cctv cam (instead of a speed cam) spotting illegals so they can be picked up - oh, that's right it is about revenue generation.

Welcome to NL's version britian 2008

GC8

I recently saw a short and unneccessary 30mph restriction added to a (previously NSL, but now 'safely' lowered to 50mph) road in the Midlands Pierre, along with a small 'bus stop' just for the camera van to park in.

That is very, very wrong; but not wrong enough to make it right.....

Simon

pslewis

"Exactly the same principle applies with speed cameras"

Sorry, I can see your point - but I don't agree .... for a couple of reasons:-

1. Shoplifting doesn't normally kill someone, the inappropriate use of speed does.

2. The shops deter shoplifters by showing signs because they want to stop the crime first ..... but, also, it is much cheaper than going to court (the speeding fine is a fixed fine through the post, no court cost issues).

3. The Shoplifter can be watched the WHOLE time they are in the store, the speeder is watched for a few yards - the only way your analogy works would be if there was a camera trained on your car at all times.

Nah, speeding is illegal - it is dangerous if inappropriate, it kills grandmothers, fathers, daughters and sons, it maims and it scars ..........

I think that we should have variable speed limits, a 20MPH outside of a school between 8am and 4pm - 30MPH outside of these times (as an example).

Eddie1980

Why don't I like it? Well I don't think its fair, this is what happens when the people in power start over stepping the line.

If I find someone breaking into my house I am only able to restrain him using "reasonable force".

There are many areas of law where "reasonable" comes into the equation, I don't think hiding in a horse box to catch speeding motorists is "reasonable". Any more then its reasonable to get naked children standing on the roadsides to catch pedophiles.

Also yes 36 in a 30 is speeding, but when were coming down to such small numbers does a few mph matter, and at what cost?? The cost of a stupefied zombified driver who drives to the limits rather then the conditions?? brilliant. First Foxes then Smoking, now drinking ages to 21, never mind the constant pressure the motorist is under (CCTV parking fines now, dont break down what ever you do)!

What kind of country is this? What about freedom to make up our own minds about "acceptable risk" what about a sense of personal responsibility?

3 times as many took there own life last year then were killed on the roads, I know where my "saving lives" focus would be if it were down to me. The motorist has been slandered long enough, its time we stopped caring about things that will make little difference and start addressing some of the bigger issues that this country seems to be ignoring, with out infringing on personal liberty and wrapping everyone in red tape and fines.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

It's safe to say that most (sane) people get miffed by "hidden" speed cameras as it goes against the grain of what they're supposed to be there for - reducing speeds not generating revenue. They most definitely are not revenue generators & the Police, Govt etc have been quite clear on that.

Road speed limits seem to be dropping like a stone at the moment & there is evidence of that everywhere. Why is that? Safety or revenue ... There is a dual carraigeway on my way to work that is a 30 limit no schools, no joe public walking by, no T junctions ... & the Police are often there with a speed camera just round a blind bend

TX.

corradoboy

Well, there's a sweeping generalisation if ever I saw one

I have driven at speeds which would see me imprisoned in this country, and as yet, have never come close to killing anyone. Yet, every day, there are people killed by drivers who probably aren't speeding. 80% of pedestrians killed are proven to have stepped voluntarily into the path of moving vehicles, 86% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured after 10pm are above the legal DD limit, 72% of pedestrians killed or injured are within 100m of a pedestrian crossing, but NOT ACTUALLY USING IT ! Can you see how we have demonised one type of road user to allow other free reign to be as irresponsible as they want, whether it's dangerous, deadly or stupid. Pedestrians and cyclists are hard to identify, and thus hard to investigate, convict and extort money from. Motorists are sitting ducks and thus take ALL the blame, regardless. When a politician comes up with a transport safety policy which includes making pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders and ALL road users equally responsible, trained, qualified, insured and monitored, punished for misuse of the highways, they'll get my vote. But, as ALL politicians are lying, cheating, two-faced, nest-feathering hypocrites, I guess I'll have to lump it

pslewis

What did these words actually convey to you?

"the inappropriate use of speed"