speed camera

[mailee]

I did wonder how accurate the speed was on my sat nav as it is 5mph faster than my speedo. I always follow my speedo reading so am always below the speed limit in that case.

 

[Steve Maskery]

I have only one speeding story to tell.
I and three friends were holidaying in Sweden. A Summer House belonging to a friend of a friend. Elictricity but no water or sanitation. A S**T lorry came around once a week to empty the buckets..

So by midweek we were in need of some ablutions.

A trip to the local town (40 miles) and a happy hour or two in the pool and sauna followed by a late-night trip back home.
10.30pm in rural Sweden. 50 kph. Big Red Light. I was driving my own car and I stopped. Big burly Constable came over, knocked on the left-hand-side window and thrust in a breathalyser, which my mate Dave,teetotal, happily operated. When the giggling subsided, the delectable Katarina came over. She spoke perfect English. After suitable interrogation, and my suppressing the urge to ask her what time she got off duty, she gave me a lecture on Swedish speed limits (if there is a school nearby, it is 40kph, even if it is 10.30 at night - I was doing 50 kph) even though actual signs are on the shelf next to the hen's teeth, and wished us a happy holiday.

It's a good job we were no longer smelly

S

 

[Mark A]

A contentious and debatable issue in my opinion, but leaving that aside the words "school" and "hill" probably give much more clue as to the siting of this particular one.

The circumstance begs the question how you knew the roads were deserted - if you couldn't see the camera you're frankly lucky there was nothing else "hidden in dense fog". Precious little sympathy here I'm afraid.

I'm not after sympathy, I was just curious. If I receive a fine, then so be it. I drive thousands of miles a month and have always been careful about my speed.

I was driving below the speed limit I thought it was for the road (even in the conditions it would have been a sensible speed if the limit was what I thought it to be) It just so happened that the section of road on which the camera, school and hill were situated was shrouded in denser fog and I made to slow down but the camera got me first.

I'm not blaming anyone but myself: I was focusing on the road and not my speed or my surroundings and I relied too much on the satnav speedometer (which is conveniently placed on the windscreen). No big deal - I'll just be even more careful in the future.

Mark

 

[WellsWood]

No big deal - I'll just be even more careful in the future.

Mark

Which, it can be reasonably argued, is the real point of speed cameras. In which case, job done. Fingers crossed the point, having been made, now isn't laboured by the arrival of a brown envelope one mornng soon.

 

[RogerS]

Here's the truth about speed cameras. It must be right as it's in the press.

And here's another article by my 'favourite' newspaper columnist George Monbigot http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/20/a-rea ... man-lives/

 

[Baldhead]

A contentious and debatable issue in my opinion, but leaving that aside the words "school" and "hill" probably give much more clue as to the siting of this particular one.

The circumstance begs the question how you knew the roads were deserted - if you couldn't see the camera you're frankly lucky there was nothing else "hidden in dense fog". Precious little sympathy here I'm afraid.

I'm not after sympathy, I was just curious. If I receive a fine, then so be it. I drive thousands of miles a month and have always been careful about my speed.

I was driving below the speed limit I thought it was for the road (even in the conditions it would have been a sensible speed if the limit was what I thought it to be) It just so happened that the section of road on which the camera, school and hill were situated was shrouded in denser fog and I made to slow down but the camera got me first.

I'm not blaming anyone but myself: I was focusing on the road and not my speed or my surroundings and I relied too much on the satnav speedometer (which is conveniently placed on the windscreen). No big deal - I'll just be even more careful in the future.

Mark

You should have been driving a lot slower that the speed limit long before you drove into the DENSE fog, anything could have been on the road in front of you, you also say it was frosty, this alone should make drivers slowdown, black ice is a killer.

Baldhead

 

[henton49er]

So, it was cold and frosty (potential for a slippery road surface), at night (potential for difficulty in seeing pedestrians), with patchy fog (potential for not seeing other road users or parked vehicles), and you are complaining about being flashed by a camera for doing 36mph??

 

[Benchwayze]

I hope so.

I wouldn't have minded if it was 4 in the afternoon, but this was 10 pm on a cold frosty Sunday night with nobody on the roads.

Excuses excuses!
It was speeding. That's all there is to it. The cameras are situated on accident prone stretches of road, for maximum effect.
Bin there dunnit etc. And did the speed awareness course in lieu of points on the licence. I now drive a lot slower and stick to limits fairly well.

Well, on a push-bike you have to be young to break speed limits. :wink:

For your further information Jacob:

Where speeding offences are concerned, the Road Traffic Act does mention the type of road, the condition of the road, and the use to which it was being put, at the time of the offence. Of course, that was for the good old days, when you would be stopped for speeding by an officer, who had to follow you for three-tenths of a mile to prove the offence.

That was because the Courts realised there is no such thing as 'Constant Velocity', and it is also virtually impossible to keep a vehicle at a set speed for any length of time. In other words, they appreciated how easy it is to creep up above limits. Consequently a Police Officer could use discretion, and issue a warning. Cameras of course have no discretion, and they are an indication of what is wrong with today's society. Everything has to be black or white.

So, check your facts Jacob, and try to resist gloating because someone got caught by a speed camera.

 

[newt]

Give the man a bit of slack, he was doing 36 in a 30 zone, yes he got flashed and he has said lesson learrnt. Some of you have said he should have been driving slower than the speed limit easy to say that, but what speed do you then suggest, 10,15 20 29, of course you can't you weren't there. You have to make a judgment at the time, drive very slow and that produces other risks. Nothing to do with cameras really just making sensible decisions about the conditions at the time and remaing within the law.

 

[SBJ]

I think you miss the point Newt. Apart from the facts that pretty much everyone can see that it's a bit daft to be breaking the speed limit in the conditions as described, the op asked if he was accountable. Accountable for his own actions.

 

[SBJ]

I hope so.

I wouldn't have minded if it was 4 in the afternoon, but this was 10 pm on a cold frosty Sunday night with nobody on the roads.

Excuses excuses!
It was speeding. That's all there is to it. The cameras are situated on accident prone stretches of road, for maximum effect.
Bin there dunnit etc. And did the speed awareness course in lieu of points on the licence. I now drive a lot slower and stick to limits fairly well.

Well, on a push-bike you have to be young to break speed limits. :wink:

For your further information Jacob:

Where speeding offences are concerned, the Road Traffic Act does mention the type of road, the condition of the road, and the use to which it was being put, at the time of the offence. Of course, that was for the good old days, when you would be stopped for speeding by an officer, who had to follow you for three-tenths of a mile to prove the offence.

That was because the Courts realised there is no such thing as 'Constant Velocity', and it is also virtually impossible to keep a vehicle at a set speed for any length of time. In other words, they appreciated how easy it is to creep up above limits. Consequently a Police Officer could use discretion, and issue a warning. Cameras of course have no discretion, and they are an indication of what is wrong with today's society. Everything has to be black or white.

So, check your facts Jacob, and try to resist gloating because someone got caught by a speed camera.

Presumably the type, condition and use of the road would only affect the severity of the punishment rather than whether a crime was committed or not?

 

[Jacob]

.....
So, check your facts Jacob, and try to resist gloating because someone got caught by a speed camera.

The facts - he was speeding and might have been caught. Are there other facts or mitigating circumstances if any sort? Don't think so.
Not gloating, just laughing - having been through the same myself, including the self-righteous sense of it being unreasonable, unfair, etc. etc. These feelings didn't last long and the speeding awareness course finally nailed them!

t is also virtually impossible to keep a vehicle at a set speed for any length of time.

Mine has a cruise control. I can set it at any speed. Unfortunately it doesn't work the brakes so it is possible to exceed the setting going down a steep enough hill, but other than that, it's quite handy for sticking to speed limits. Saves fuel too - less erratic accelerating and braking.

Presumably the type, condition and use of the road would only affect the severity of the punishment rather than whether a crime was committed or not?

Largely fixed penalty as far as I know, if no accident is involved.

 

[newt]

I think you miss the point Newt. Apart from the facts that pretty much everyone can see that it's a bit daft to be breaking the speed limit in the conditions as described, the op asked if he was accountable. Accountable for his own actions.

Stuart, yes of course he is accountable he and nobody else broke the speed limit, I was was really commenting on the observations made others about what speed he should have been driving. Also never rely on the Satnav to tell you the speed limit.

 

[Benchwayze]

Suit your self Jacob. The facts I referred to were the words in the Act, of which you are clearly ignorant.

And yes I think you WERE gloating.
A speed awareness course doesn't make you an expert, so don't get lulled into thinking you won't get caught again! :wink:


SJB,

Yes, the conditions, use and type of road could and did affect the punishment, but mostly it was down to officers to decide whether or not to prosecute. Either way, a report had to be made.

If the 'miscreant' argued, then he/she wasn't admitting the offence, and a caution couldn't be given. That meant a Notice of Intended Prosecution. (This procedure gave rise to speculation that you got booked just because you argued with an officer. Not so.) In the end, if a report was made it was the Chief Inspector at the Station who decided. Not like today, when decisions are made by some local civilian Hitler, with no knowledge of the law and disproportionate powers.) As I said, it's a measure of the kind of society 'up with which, we have to put.'

 

[SBJ]

Suit your self Jacob. Verbal diarrhoea again?
SJB,

Yes, the conditions, use and type of road could and did affect the punishment, but mostly it was down to officers to decide whether or not to prosecute. Either way, a report had to be made.

If the 'miscreant' argued, then he/she wasn't admitting the offence, and a caution couldn't be given. That meant a Notice of Intended Prosecution. (This procedure gave rise to speculation that you got booked just because you argued with an officer. Not so.) In the end, if a report was made it was the Chief Inspector at the Station who decided. Not like today, when decisions are made by some local civilian Hitler, with no knowledge of the law and disproportionate powers.) As I said, it's a measure of the kind of society 'up with which, we have to put.'

Fair enough, but here's the thing - people know about speed cameras, it's no surprise that they exist on our roads. We all know that if you get caught by a speed camera, then it's because you've done something stupid. Given that most cars speedos are calibrated on the high side, and you have to be going in excess of the speed limit to to get caught there is no argument against them. I'd have them on every road, because quite frankly if you are stupid enough to get caught then I'm glad you have to pay your fine because it's more money in our pot to spend.

So, I don't think "it's a measure of the kind of society 'up with which, we have to put" in terms of how justice served but rather a reflection on the individuals in society that don't think before they drive.

 

[Peter T]

.....
So, check your facts Jacob, and try to resist gloating because someone got caught by a speed camera.

The facts - he was speeding and might have been caught. Are there other facts or mitigating circumstances if any sort? Don't think so.
Not gloating, just laughing - having been through the same myself, including the self-righteous sense of it being unreasonable, unfair, etc. etc. These feelings didn't last long and the speeding awareness course finally nailed them!

t is also virtually impossible to keep a vehicle at a set speed for any length of time.

Mine has a cruise control. I can set it at any speed. Unfortunately it doesn't work the brakes so it is possible to exceed the setting going down a steep enough hill, but other than that, it's quite handy for sticking to speed limits. Saves fuel too - less erratic accelerating and braking.

Presumably the type, condition and use of the road would only affect the severity of the punishment rather than whether a crime was committed or not?

Largely fixed penalty as far as I know, if no accident is involved.

You must of been on a different speed course to the one I was on. What a pathetic waste of an afternoon listening to half truths and idiotic statements from two guys who knew less about cars and motoring than my mum!

And, BTW, cruise control doesn't improve fuel consumption. It tries to maintain a constant speed, so going up hill it applies enough power to do that. If you were trying to drive as economically as possible, you would maintain a constant throttle opening and allow the speed to bleed off, within reason of course.

 

[newt]

.....
So, check your facts Jacob, and try to resist gloating because someone got caught by a speed camera.

The facts - he was speeding and might have been caught. Are there other facts or mitigating circumstances if any sort? Don't think so.
Not gloating, just laughing - having been through the same myself, including the self-righteous sense of it being unreasonable, unfair, etc. etc. These feelings didn't last long and the speeding awareness course finally nailed them!

t is also virtually impossible to keep a vehicle at a set speed for any length of time.

Mine has a cruise control. I can set it at any speed. Unfortunately it doesn't work the brakes so it is possible to exceed the setting going down a steep enough hill, but other than that, it's quite handy for sticking to speed limits. Saves fuel too - less erratic accelerating and braking.

Presumably the type, condition and use of the road would only affect the severity of the punishment rather than whether a crime was committed or not?

Largely fixed penalty as far as I know, if no accident is involved.

You must of been on a different speed course to the one I was on. What a pathetic waste of an afternoon listening to half truths and idiotic statements from two guys who knew less about cars and motoring than my mum!

And, BTW, cruise control doesn't improve fuel consumption. It tries to maintain a constant speed, so going up hill it applies enough power to do that. If you were trying to drive as economically as possible, you would maintain a constant throttle opening and allow the speed to bleed off, within reason of course.

Quite right Peter, I was just about to comment on the cruse control statement, many folk think it is the most economical way to drive, as you say it's not. Cruise control is fixed speed variable fuel consumption, manual driving can be variable speed fixed consumption.

 

[Jacob]

......
You must of been on a different speed course to the one I was on. What a pathetic waste of an afternoon listening to half truths and idiotic statements from two guys who knew less about cars and motoring than my mum!

Maybe you need to go on another one then

And, BTW, cruise control doesn't improve fuel consumption.....

It does for me.

 

[Peter T]

......
You must of been on a different speed course to the one I was on. What a pathetic waste of an afternoon listening to half truths and idiotic statements from two guys who knew less about cars and motoring than my mum!

Maybe you need to go on another one then

And, BTW, cruise control doesn't improve fuel consumption.....

It does for me.

Sorry but I've got better things to do than listen to a couple of old duffers talking nonsense.

As to the cruise control..................... all I can say is you should take up speed awareness instructing!

 

[SBJ]

Surely you can only judge whether cruise control improves fuel consumption if you are aware of how someone drives without it?