Speed cameras - unfair to car drivers ?
Posted by: long-time-dead on 26 November 2004
Thought that might get your attention 
We were chatting at work today about the "average speed" type cameras and I recalled that on Top Gear it was suggested that motorbikes can expolit the system as the cameras only record the front of the vehicle and there are no plates on a motorbike for safety (!) reasons.
I am no legal-eagle but would a motorist have any basis to complain about being victimised and treated unfairly when compared to a motorcyclist as the system is clearly targeted at cars and vans etc ?
No moral issues please, just a chance to discuss something different about speed cameras !!!!!
We were chatting at work today about the "average speed" type cameras and I recalled that on Top Gear it was suggested that motorbikes can expolit the system as the cameras only record the front of the vehicle and there are no plates on a motorbike for safety (!) reasons.
I am no legal-eagle but would a motorist have any basis to complain about being victimised and treated unfairly when compared to a motorcyclist as the system is clearly targeted at cars and vans etc ?
No moral issues please, just a chance to discuss something different about speed cameras !!!!!
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by HTK
LOL! Nice try. Let me know if you ever contest that one in court.
Harry
Harry
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Martin D
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Deane F
I doubt that a claim of victimisation would persuade a court that you are not guilty of speeding because the court is concerned only with whether or not a charge is proved.
Nor could the charge be proved unconstitutional because the UK has an unwritten constitution that is not entrenched.
Perhaps a case could be lobbied to parliament. Good luck with that one....
Deane
Nor could the charge be proved unconstitutional because the UK has an unwritten constitution that is not entrenched.
Perhaps a case could be lobbied to parliament. Good luck with that one....
Deane
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Deane F
A motorist in New Zealand successfully defended a speed camera fine by proving reasonable doubt existed as to the accuracy of the speed camera. The cameras need to be set up at precisely 22 degrees perpendicular to the line of the road. He proved that the operator of the camera had not set up the camera precisely enough. The police responded by changing their training process to plug the hole and prevent further defended fines.
Deane
Deane
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by andy c
Hi,
This depends upon the type of speed camera, and the way its facing.
Also don't forget that forces are deploying the newer type on ring roads which show an average speed over 3 or 5/10 of a mile etc.
At the end of the day, as I've said before it's the speed 'limit', which is the 'maximum' that you are allowed to travel on that road, subject to the conditions prevailing at the time.
Technical defences re kit are a sticky wicket because once it's been proved once the loophole is quickly closed.
regards
andy c!
This depends upon the type of speed camera, and the way its facing.
Also don't forget that forces are deploying the newer type on ring roads which show an average speed over 3 or 5/10 of a mile etc.
At the end of the day, as I've said before it's the speed 'limit', which is the 'maximum' that you are allowed to travel on that road, subject to the conditions prevailing at the time.
Technical defences re kit are a sticky wicket because once it's been proved once the loophole is quickly closed.
regards
andy c!
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by HTK
quote:
Originally posted by Martin D:
Harry many are/do:
http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/index.php
and
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr132.html
Hi Martin. Forgive my laziness - do you know if anyone has contested and won using the argument LTD used?
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
Just remove your front number plate.
Paul
Paul
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by BigH47
quote:
Just remove your front number plate
That is a vehicle defficiency charge if its not a motorcycle.
Howard
Posted on: 27 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
But you didn't notice until just now and you'll get it fixed immediately. It's not a safety issue, a policeman is not going to want to do any paperwork about it.
Paul
Paul
Posted on: 27 November 2004 by long-time-dead
Only one tick attributed to this topic instead
of the usual five.
Is this a good or bad thing ???????
of the usual five.
Is this a good or bad thing ???????
Posted on: 27 November 2004 by HTK
You really have to ask? Check some of the five tickers.... Low marks this week is nothing short of glowing.
Cheers
Harry
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 27 November 2004 by Brian OReilly
The "missing plate" ruse works about three times before your vehicle is confiscated, Paul.
I ride a bike. I wear an IRA balaclava and dark glasses. So far, so good.
Brian OReilly
I ride a bike. I wear an IRA balaclava and dark glasses. So far, so good.
Brian OReilly
Posted on: 27 November 2004 by andy c
NIce.
Lets encourage someone not only to exceed the speed limit, but also to be dishonest as well.
andy c
Lets encourage someone not only to exceed the speed limit, but also to be dishonest as well.
quote:
But you didn't notice until just now and you'll get it fixed immediately. It's not a safety issue, a policeman is not going to want to do any paperwork about it.
andy c
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
Who's encouraging dishonesty or speed limit breaking? It's not me. I'm just reacting to external pressure.
Paul
Paul
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by HTK
quote:
Originally posted by andy c:
NIce.
Lets encourage someone not only to exceed the speed limit, but also to be dishonest as well.
andy c
Do most of us need any encouragement?
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by andy c
quote:
Do most of us need any encouragement?
Well no, not at all. But thats why its easy money isn't it!
andy c!
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by HTK
Yup. Nice work if you can get it.
Cheers
Harry
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by andy c
Hi Harry,
Seriously, the problem is money.
this is because money+efficiency = more cops = more traffic cops = safer roads.
Due to the install of camera's, and only having a few mobile speed detection units, I would bet anything that when future research is done the stats for road deaths/injuries/damage on the roads that don't have static camera's have increased. This won't just be due to speeding, but also due probably more so to bad driving going unpunished.
regards,
andy c!
Seriously, the problem is money.
this is because money+efficiency = more cops = more traffic cops = safer roads.
Due to the install of camera's, and only having a few mobile speed detection units, I would bet anything that when future research is done the stats for road deaths/injuries/damage on the roads that don't have static camera's have increased. This won't just be due to speeding, but also due probably more so to bad driving going unpunished.
regards,
andy c!
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by HTK
I've seen some 'evidence' claiming that speed cameras haven't reduced accidents. I agree that it's too soon to issue the defenitive ananysis. But one thing I do know for sure is that when speed cameras were first introduced on the A20 in Bexley and the M25 at hHeathrow/Frimley, the traffic calmed down a lot, tended to keep moving and (esp on the A20) it was no longer like being in a Stock car race.
Of course I'm going back a few years. I think we're all wiser now and many seem to have 'inside' knowlege on which cameras are live and which aren't. I still regard it as another form of tax but would respectfully point out that unlike many taxes, this one is easily avoided.
Cheers
Harry
Of course I'm going back a few years. I think we're all wiser now and many seem to have 'inside' knowlege on which cameras are live and which aren't. I still regard it as another form of tax but would respectfully point out that unlike many taxes, this one is easily avoided.
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
I've seen some 'evidence' claiming that speed cameras haven't reduced accidents
on the contrary there's no evidence showing they have reduced accidents - other than, conveniently ignored, statistical anomalies.
Given that less than 10% of accidents are caused by 'excessive speed' and that most of that 'excessive speed' is still within the speed limit it would be highly surprising if they did reduce accidents.
In the meantime, now that there are no police patrols on the roads, the general standard of driving is becoming far worse and the accident rate is actually increasing. This will lead to more claims by the police/government of 'crazy speeders plaguing our roads' and yet more speed cameras being installed.
To make matters worse, if you turn up to a police station to make a report about dangerous driving they'll just about tell you to fuck off and stop wasting their time. If you then bother to spend the time filling out an incident report the processing people will write you a letter about 4 weeks later telling you to fuck off and stop wasting their time. So somebody who ran you off the road and then got out and took a swing at you is still out on the roads. Too bad, you're not dead, so just fuck off and stop annoying us - what a wonderful attitude the police have.
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
To be fair the police are driven by the same external pressures as drivers buying camera detectors and mislaying their front number plates. You get what you push for. This cause and effect seems to be really difficult for governments and their flunkies to grasp. It applies all over the place, look at the way the welfare state drives behaviour, for instance.
Paul
Paul
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by long-time-dead
You are a traffic cop. Do you :
A: Stop a motorist doing 34mph for speeding.
B: Stop a Corsa/Clio/Punto etc. that has blacked out windows/aftermarket alloys/replacement lights/mis-represented number plate and question the validity of the driver's insurance policy.
The choice is yours............ it is becoming a Chav State
A: Stop a motorist doing 34mph for speeding.
B: Stop a Corsa/Clio/Punto etc. that has blacked out windows/aftermarket alloys/replacement lights/mis-represented number plate and question the validity of the driver's insurance policy.
The choice is yours............ it is becoming a Chav State
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by andy c
quote:
To make matters worse, if you turn up to a police station to make a report about dangerous driving they'll just about tell you to fuck off and stop wasting their time. If you then bother to spend the time filling out an incident report the processing people will write you a letter about 4 weeks later telling you to fuck off and stop wasting their time. So somebody who ran you off the road and then got out and took a swing at you is still out on the roads. Too bad, you're not dead, so just fuck off and stop annoying us - what a wonderful attitude the police have.
Hi,
This comment is generalistic, and quite franky, crap.
If this is the attitude you display when reporting anything then I dare bet the officer has to bite his/her tongue quite hard.
My personal opinion of course, but you voiced yours so I am voicing a reply,
regards,
andy c!
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by DArkan9el
Seems to me Mr Sheridan that you have a bit of a temper too!
Hmm! I see...
Hmm! I see...
Posted on: 28 November 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
This comment is generalistic, and quite franky, crap.
generalistic? Then why has it happened to me on several occasions at different police stations?
I go in quite calm to report something and get the standard response "nothing we can do, fill in the form". You fill in the form - and get the same response "nothing we can do". Temper? Not when I'm reporting these things, but damn right that I'm pissed off about it now, solely because nobody gives a fuck. I make a report about someone deliberately trying to kill me with their car and NOTHING happens. If any of these cops actually gave a damn and could be arsed doing their job then no, I wouldn't be upset. Before anyone asks, I've also tried reporting this to an mp but that's proved just as useless. If anyone has some brilliant suggestions about how we get the people we're paying to protect us to actually do that I'd be glad to hear it.