Mobile Speed Cameras......Again

[Baldhead]

Got another Notice Of Intended Prosecution today, for doing 36 in a 30 limit, it's strange because I saw the camera, I even mentioned it to the wife, I had a little laugh as we passed it, checked my speed, but didn't really need to as I had the speed limiter set to 30, so how the hell could I have been doing 36????

I recently attended a speed awareness course, there were six in our group, the speed awareness lecturer asked us all why we attended the course instead of taking the fixed penalty, one member of the group was adamant he was not speeding but accepted going on the course because he couldn't afford the costs involved fighting his corner, at the time I thought he was just one of those whinging types............ but now I wonder, was he right, should he have fought, should I fight.

At the time of the 'alleged offence' I was driving alongside another vehicle travelling in the same direction going at the same speed, I know nothing about speed cameras, but I wonder if the camera got confused by two vehicles travelling next to each other, because I sure as hell am confused.

A very angry Baldhead

 

[ColeyS1]

Have you got the original size wheels on the vehicle ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Baldhead]

Have you got the original size wheels on the vehicle ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Yes

Baldhead

 

[heatherw]

Mmm, could they have the camera set wrong? My father was telling me about a camera close to home which had been set for Km instead of miles. I believe you can also object on the grounds that the camera hasn't been recently calibrated (obviously if it hasn't been).

 

[MickCheese]

I thought there was some rules about vehicle separation and reflected images throwing out readings.

Try looking on Google for the rules. Truvelo is a company that makes laser equipment so start there.

Mick

 

[mailee]

Damn speed cameras! :evil: Since my second offence I have had my eyes glued to the speedo going through 30 zones, I swear I will end up having an accident as I am not concentrating on the road but on the dashboard! :roll:

 

[finneyb]

Some tips here that may help http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46407

 

[bernienufc]

hmmm, similar thing happened to me, i know i was speeding when i saw the camera (came around the bend) as i had just checked my spped seconds before and knew i was doing 58/59 60 would be well tops (50 limit), i got a summons for 63, so even allowing for speedo error there was no way that i was doing that, but i knew i was never going to win against them and i knew i was speeding so took the hit, although i grates me at the level at it which is was pitched.
I am not anti police but there are times when i think if they need help they can shove it.

 

[Baldhead]

Some tips here that may help http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46407

Thanks for the link finneyb, some interesting reading there.

hmmm, similar thing happened to me, i know i was speeding when i saw the camera (came around the bend) as i had just checked my spped seconds before and knew i was doing 58/59 60 would be well tops (50 limit), i got a summons for 63, so even allowing for speedo error there was no way that i was doing that, but i knew i was never going to win against them and i knew i was speeding so took the hit, although i grates me at the level at it which is was pitched.
I am not anti police but there are times when i think if they need help they can shove it.

I have always been pro the police but now I'm beginning to think why should I be, the unfortunate thing is, I have to prove either the camera (which has been proven is not 100%) was faulty or the operator wasn't using it properly, it would cost me s**t loads of money to pursue that and for what, to not have 3 points put on my licence, it ain't worth it, it just reinforces what a lot of people have said, speed cameras are there to make money.

Given the chance I would sit near to a mobile speed camera with a placard saying MOBILE CAMERA, that would slow people down so it would have the desired effect, however I understand from what I have found on the internet, I would be committing a criminal offence and would be arrested, criminal offence my a**e, I would be arrested because the camera operator wouldn't make enough money to cover his/her wages.

Baldhead

 

[Spindle]

Hi

I believe speedo error can be plus or minus 10% - however manufacturers err on the low side to prevent compensation claims from speeding drivers citing incorrect speedometers as the cause for their offence.

One of the first things I do with a new vehicle is to compare the relevant speedo readings, (30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 mph), with a sat nav readout - this will be more accurate than the speedo in most cases, at least then I know when I'm speeding.

I don't condone speeding but feel that most of us do it, either intentionally or accidentally, either way, if caught we deserve to be punished for breaking the law.

Regards Mick

 

[MMUK]

I had an NIP several years ago (the **** in his hi-vis jumped out from behind a hedge just as I was in range). Yes I was speeding but there was no way I was doing the 93mph the NIP claimed in a 60mph limit. I contested it and it went to court. The Police evidence presented in court said 63mph so the judge threw it out saying that that was well within the accuracy allowance for the car's speedometer. I didn't even have to get up and say a word :lol:

 

[riclepp]

There was some documentary on tv a few years back as well as in the paper all about the speed camers. It stated that a particual model always gave false negatives when aimed a certain objects. It claimed that the media bought one of the cameras and had it correctly calibrated and then clocked a solid brick wall doing 5mph. Other areas that gave false negatives where the following
Windscreen
Numberplate
Wheel Trims
Wet surfaces

and a couple of others which I can't remember. We must now remember that the police are no longer interested in solving crime, they are a business and therefor moterists are a far easier way of making money. So you can tell when they are short of cash or the Cheif Police Officer needs new office decor...out come the speed cameras, happens all the time here in Essex. They also get upset when you ask for the calibration certificate and call it a speed camera. I got done a few years back at 33mph....go figure!! I wrote a letter of complaint against the traffic sergent (due to his deminor as a public servant and all that) and funny enough he was transfer to another area of Essex.

 

[markturner]

Given the chance I would sit near to a mobile speed camera with a placard saying MOBILE CAMERA, that would slow people down so it would have the desired effect, however I understand from what I have found on the internet, I would be committing a criminal offence and would be arrested, criminal offence my a**e, I would be arrested because the camera operator wouldn't make enough money to cover his/her wages.

Baldhead

This is a strange one, as fixed cameras have to have a sign showing the road has cameras. Also, they recently changed from making the cameras grey, so they were more difficult to see, to painting them bright yellow. I wonder why its different for that scenario? If you make someone slow down, then its job done isn't it? Apart from the fact that they missed out on some income......

It's a load of nonsense anyway.....30mph...safe 33 mph...dangerous....I don't think so

 

[Steve Maskery]

It's a load of nonsense anyway.....30mph...safe 33 mph...dangerous....I don't think so

Mark
At the risk of opening up an argument (as opposed to a discussion), I cannot agree with this statement.
That extra 10% of speed means increased stopping distances. If a child runs out in front of you (and that has happened to me - it is terrifying) those extra 13 feet can mean the difference between stopping before you hit him and ending his life.
30mph = 90% chance of survival
40mph = 90% of death

It's not even linear, as the greatest deceleration happens near the end of the stop, so the further back up the curve you go, the greater the speed of the vehicle and the longer the stopping distance, pro rata.

I'm not being holier than thou here. I've been driving for 37 years and never had a speeding ticket, until a couple of months ago. I did the course this week. It was quite interesting and I did learn things I did not know. But I don't want to have to do it again, even after the three-year limit.
S

 

[Sheptonphil]

We must now remember that the police are no longer interested in solving crime, they are a business and therefor moterists are a far easier way of making money. .

In Somerset, all fixed speed cameras have been switched off for the last couple of years, as the County Council refused o fund them. The police have now proposed buying them at £1 each and turning them back on even in areas where accident figures have been shown to have fallen since the turn off. Got to be a better bet than a £1 lottery ticket for a payout.

Phil

 

[Baldhead]

Steve I too recently did the course, like yourself my first speeding ticket in 35 years of driving, I also found it very interesting and learned quite a few things, that is why this time I am genuinely annoyed because I now stick strictly to the speed limit.

Baldhead

 

[Lons]

It's a load of nonsense anyway.....30mph...safe 33 mph...dangerous....I don't think so

Mark
At the risk of opening up an argument (as opposed to a discussion), I cannot agree with this statement.
That extra 10% of speed means increased stopping distances. If a child runs out in front of you (and that has happened to me - it is terrifying) those extra 13 feet can mean the difference between stopping before you hit him and ending his life.
30mph = 90% chance of survival
40mph = 90% of death

It's not even linear, as the greatest deceleration happens near the end of the stop, so the further back up the curve you go, the greater the speed of the vehicle and the longer the stopping distance, pro rata.

S

It isn't as black and white as that unfortunately Steve. There are a number of other variable which means it's almost impossible to compare like with like.

At similar speed and conditions, My A6 can stop in a shorter distance than my wifes Mini, not as quick as my mates Porche but considerably quicker than a typical delivery lorry or a bus and the older the vehicle the more likely it has poorer brakes. there is also the issue of road conditions, driver response time ability and number of occupants / load of the vehicle, air temperature allied to type of tyres fitted etc. etc. In other words a modern car with highly efficient brakes (generally high performance cars are best) is often capable of stopping as quickly from 40 or 50 as would a different vehicle from 30 or even 20. - Apples and pears!!

I wouldn't of course argue with the survival figures or even the need for adherance to speed limits but they can only ever be a generalisation.

I haven't had a ticket in 47 years of driving BTW, but I bet that's put the moccas on that!

Bob

PS

I started a thread about a particular mobile camera a while ago. A thread that rumbled on and on but the stats I have proves beyond doubt that the motive in this area is purely financially driven as the location has had not a single incident in the past 5 years compared with another road which has had numerous including a number of deaths. The revenue they collect from that hiding place is staggering and unjustifyable but they were there again this week whilst some poor driver was badly injured 15 miles away where they never site the camera.
Road safety camera? - pull the other one.

 

[Baldhead]

Bob

I remember that thread well.

This camera was on Barrack Road, Newcastle, I was in the outside lane running alongside an old van, I saw the camera parked up on the right about halfway down the hill, speed limiter set to 30, as soon as I saw him I checked my speed, it was still 30 at the brow of the hill, I covered my brake and kept braking until I was right up to the camera van, I even laughed and said to the wife, something like, "I bet he catches a few out on this hill" (or words to that effect)

I can't remember the last time there was a fatality or serious accident on that stretch of road, which sort of reinforces what you said on your thread.

The next time a mobile camera van is parked up under the trees next to the fire station I used to work at, I will do my upmost to warn oncoming motorists of his position, when I get arrested (and I've been told I will be) I will ask for the statistics for fatal or serious accidents on that part of the road.

As you say speeding is wrong but let's not confuse road safety campaigns with income generation.

Rant over

Baldhead

 

[markturner]

I too remember the last thread and it's all been done to death there really. However, since you raised the stopping distance point Steve ( and I am sure we can debate this politely until Jacob comes along), these figures can be a bit of a misnomer...consider this, in the hypothetical "child runs out in front of you" scenario you raise, nearly everyone has a chance to hit the brakes, swerve and generally mitigate their speed - You are never going to hit that child at 40MPH without stopping, or 30MPH if that's what you were doing, unless the child runs out from behind a car right in front of you, in which case, you would not even have time to register it and start to brake...... So actual impact speeds are likely to be considerably lower. Lets say you were doing 33 mph instead of 30, braked and were doing 15 or 20 when you hit the child.....that extra 3 mph will translate down to maybe 1mph at impact. I doubt if you could even statistically measure the difference in effect. Those stopping distances are measured to 0mph. lets face it, no one ever slows from say 40 or 60 or whatever you are doing to a dead stop..you hit the brakes and slow down....maybe 30 or 40 or 50%...so those distances are going to be much closer if you measure them at that point. Most accidents, you are still moving at quite a high speed when you collide.

Again, I stress, I am not advocating dangerous driving, but I hesitate to blindly swallow all the statistics people throw around without applying some logic or reason to them. And the point about different cars and conditions is also very valid.

My philosophy is to always drive safely by matching your speed and or style of driving to the conditions. If that means driving at 15MPH in a 30 limit, ( maybe its really foggy, heavy rain etc...) so be it. But another day in totally different conditions etc, you could perhaps very safely drive at 35mph in that same spot. This point is amply illustrated by the use of variable speed limits, which show that a set limit can often be safe or unsafe depending on conditions.

 

[KevM]

I too remember the last thread and it's all been done to death there really. However, since you raised the stopping distance point Steve ( and I am sure we can debate this politely until Jacob comes along), these figures can be a bit of a misnomer...consider this, in the hypothetical "child runs out in front of you" scenario you raise, nearly everyone has a chance to hit the brakes, swerve and generally mitigate their speed - You are never going to hit that child at 40MPH without stopping, or 30MPH if that's what you were doing, unless the child runs out from behind a car right in front of you, in which case, you would not even have time to register it and start to brake...... So actual impact speeds are likely to be considerably lower. Lets say you were doing 33 mph instead of 30, braked and were doing 15 or 20 when you hit the child.....that extra 3 mph will translate down to maybe 1mph at impact. I doubt if you could even statistically measure the difference in effect. Those stopping distances are measured to 0mph. lets face it, no one ever slows from say 40 or 60 or whatever you are doing to a dead stop..you hit the brakes and slow down....maybe 30 or 40 or 50%...so those distances are going to be much closer if you measure them at that point. Most accidents, you are still moving at quite a high speed when you collide.

Again, I stress, I am not advocating dangerous driving, but I hesitate to blindly swallow all the statistics people throw around without applying some logic or reason to them. And the point about different cars and conditions is also very valid.

My philosophy is to always drive safely by matching your speed and or style of driving to the conditions. If that means driving at 15MPH in a 30 limit, ( maybe its really foggy, heavy rain etc...) so be it. But another day in totally different conditions etc, you could perhaps very safely drive at 35mph in that same spot. This point is amply illustrated by the use of variable speed limits, which show that a set limit can often be safe or unsafe depending on conditions.

It's hard to know where to start with a rebuttal, and as previous experience has demonstrated that you're impervious to reasoned debate I shan't waste anybody's time further - other than to observe how ironic it is that you, while claiming to want a polite debate, start it off with an unveiled snide reference to another board member.