Fecking Police Mobile Speed Traps

[Pavilionaire]

The fact is the government know the police have been taking the piss for too long in a vain attempt to make up budget shortfalls.

This has been borne out by the moves to tighten up on the location of cameras and the downgrading of borderline offences from 3 points to 2 points.

Road safety policy in this country was an absolute shambles, and I am pleased the government has now recognised this.

 

[pigin stripes]

Look I don't like speed traps like all drivers however they play an important part in road safety.
I have posted this link before http://www.sussexsafetycameras.gov.uk/
we don't do it under hand in sussex all sites and times are listed, check if you can be bothered,
oh the Hamilton trick.....good luck mate all the holes are filled down to the RO now so its either 3 points for speeding or up to 5 for failing to notify of driver

 

[Spiros]

The fact is the government know the police have been taking the piss for too long in a vain attempt to make up budget shortfalls.

This has been borne out by the moves to tighten up on the location of cameras and the downgrading of borderline offences from 3 points to 2 points.

Road safety policy in this country was an absolute shambles, and I am pleased the government has now recognised this.

Sorry mate - the people who are taking the piss are the ones who speed and expect to get away with it. As has been said many times before, the police wouldn't get a penny if no-one went over the speed limit. End of.

The police are there to enforce the law. They don't decide the speed limit on a particular road - the council do that. If you want to drive more quickly to work then try and get your council to change the speed limit.

Speeding cars are far more annoying to me than speed cameras. When I'm trying to get out of my driveway, or cross the road in the morning it's the impatient idiots with the heavy right foot that are making it dangerous for me in what should be a quiet residential road (now used as a rat-run to avoid the West Worthing railway crossing).

 

[tedebear]

When I'm trying to get out of my driveway, or cross the road in the morning it's the impatient idiots with the heavy right foot that are making it dangerous for me in what should be a quiet residential road (now used as a rat-run to avoid the West Worthing railway crossing).

totally agree - we live in what has become a rat run as they've closed Victoria road in Shoreham - the speed that some people get up to going up our street is incredible - especially given that it is the main walking route home for school kids and theres a lolly pop crossing at shcool times at the top of the road....

 

[Lammy]

I think every one agrees that speed cameras are a good thing when they are used correctly.

Where peoples opinion seems to differ is when they are used to catch a motorist speeding at 2:00am on the A23 on a straight bit of roads. Some say it is preying on an easy target for the police, others say you shouldn't be speeding.

Personally I'd like to see all speed cameras on motorways and dual carrageways abolished. Unless the area they are in are PROVEN black spots.

I would also like to see more cameras in the centre of towns and outside ALL schools set at 20mph (the schools that is) .

I would also like to see motorists going 35mph on a 60mph road penalised and fined for incorrect use of speed.

I would also like to see more police carrying out RANDOM breathaliser tests and most car accidents involve booze.

It will never happen though as it is too easy top catch people speeding on motorways. Our motorways were invented to get people from A to B as quickly as possible. They only have speed limits now because of the AC Cobra. They are STILL our safest roads by far.

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

I think every one agrees that speed cameras are a good thing when they are used correctly.

Where peoples opinion seems to differ is when they are used to catch a motorist speeding at 2:00am on the A23 on a straight bit of roads. Some say it is preying on an easy target for the police, others say you shouldn't be speeding.

Personally I'd like to see all speed cameras on motorways and dual carrageways abolished. Unless the area they are in are PROVEN black spots.

I would also like to see more cameras in the centre of towns and outside ALL schools set at 20mph (the schools that is) .

I would also like to see motorists going 35mph on a 60mph road penalised and fined for incorrect use of speed.

I would also like to see more police carrying out RANDOM breathaliser tests and most car accidents involve booze.

It will never happen though as it is too easy top catch people speeding on motorways. Our motorways were invented to get people from A to B as quickly as possible. They only have speed limits now because of the AC Cobra. They are STILL our safest roads by far.

All seems fair, there is simply no justification for them sitting on bridges over the M4 at two in the morning - whereas I am still yet to see one positioned anywhere near a school, where going at 30 along narrow, parked-up streets is madness.

 

[Lammy]

To be honest no accident on the motor way has been caused by someone going 75mph rather than 70mph. If they MUST have speed traps on motorways they should be there to catch dick heads doing stupid speeds like 90mph+ I wouldn't mind that at all!

Cameras that can catch tail gaters would get my vote too!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

A few thoughts on this.

1) The figures for traffic offences, ie speeding, dangerous driving, drink driving etc, are recorded entirely separately to the national crime figures, so to say the police go after motorists to try and get the crime detection figures up is untrue.

2) The police who tend to catch you speeding are an entirely separate department (Traffic) to those who police local neighbourhoods, and therefore even if they weren't clocking people doing 45 in a 30 zone, they would still be out policing the roads, clearing up after accidents, notifying next of kin following road deaths and so on. Hence it's also rubbish to think that they'd be out catching burglars if they weren't pissing speeding motorists off.

3) It was in many of today's papers that the number of traffic officers has actually fallen by something like 15% over the past year, resulting in many fewer convictions for traffic offences. Most of the papers I read complained that this was a bad thing, in that more bad drivers or drink drivers would get away with it. So it's not true to say the police concentrate excessively on traffic offences either.

None out of three so far, chaps.

At the end of the day, all police forces have departments employed to enforce the rules of the road, that's their job, as decided by the government. It might be annoying for you to get caught speeding on a quiet road at 3 in the morning, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the rules applied 24 hours a day, not just when it's "a bit busy out", or you wanted to get home a little quicker. Likewise, they apply to all of us, not just those of you who think they aren't strictly fair.

We might not like it, but the law is there, so deal with it. I wouldn't go out and break someone's nose and then claim I shouldn't be prosecuted because I didn't realise the police were watching me do it...

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Although the crown can issue a summons, and if this summons is served with conduct money they are technically committing an offence if they don't attend court!

Agreed. But under questioning in court the Judge cannot demand that a witness, defendant or plaintiff answer a question that could increminate their spouse.

Bunking off going to court is definately unwise - its a criminal offence.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

To be honest no accident on the motor way has been caused by someone going 75mph rather than 70mph. If they MUST have speed traps on motorways they should be there to catch dick heads doing stupid speeds like 90mph+ I wouldn't mind that at all!

Cameras that can catch tail gaters would get my vote too!

And all members of the "middle lane owners club" - IGNORANT TWATS!

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Here's one to ponder: Should a speed camera be hidden to catch speeders or clearly maked with warning notices to get drivers to slow down?

This should answer the question of whether its road-safety or taking your money (fines) - which is the ultimate objective?

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

That website is poo, it reckons my motor was caught speeding in Cambridge and Cleveland on the same day !!

 

[mrhairy]

Why not buy a Snooper then? They are not against the law and range from only £150. Police do not like them, but it has been proved that they save accidents.

 

[chez]

Here's one to ponder: Should a speed camera be hidden to catch speeders or clearly maked with warning notices to get drivers to slow down?

This should answer the question of whether its road-safety or taking your money (fines) - which is the ultimate objective?

They should be clearly marked. Bolis down to safety again - if you know you are approaching a camera you can slow gradually, causing other motorists no danger. There can be few things more dangerous than a motorist slamming the anchors on with a clear road ahead of him just because he has spotted a speed TRAP.

 

[South Yarra Seagull]

In Victoria, Australia they have hidden, temporary speed cameras set up by the roadside. They do not advertise the fact, and actually have outsourced the maintenance and positioning of the camera so you are not looking for a Jam Sandwich by the side of the road, it could be any old car and often is...

I am yet to be caught by one, however I did receive a charming letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to say that i had been spotted throwing a cigarette butt out of my car window and please can i pay $120 now thank you... WHAT THE...?

ALSO, on my traffic in Oz whinge; Victorian Police have become the first Police Force in the world to introduce random DRUG TESTING. THey pull you over, swab your mouth and can find THC (the active component of marijuana) or Meth Amphetamine in your saliva. Depending how much they find they can work out if you are off your head or not and will fine you in line with standard DRINK driving policy.

Brings a new meaning to speeding.................

 

[Westdene Seagull]

A few thoughts on this.

1) The figures for traffic offences, ie speeding, dangerous driving, drink driving etc, are recorded entirely separately to the national crime figures, so to say the police go after motorists to try and get the crime detection figures up is untrue.

2) The police who tend to catch you speeding are an entirely separate department (Traffic) to those who police local neighbourhoods, and therefore even if they weren't clocking people doing 45 in a 30 zone, they would still be out policing the roads, clearing up after accidents, notifying next of kin following road deaths and so on. Hence it's also rubbish to think that they'd be out catching burglars if they weren't pissing speeding motorists off.

3) It was in many of today's papers that the number of traffic officers has actually fallen by something like 15% over the past year, resulting in many fewer convictions for traffic offences. Most of the papers I read complained that this was a bad thing, in that more bad drivers or drink drivers would get away with it. So it's not true to say the police concentrate excessively on traffic offences either.

None out of three so far, chaps.

At the end of the day, all police forces have departments employed to enforce the rules of the road, that's their job, as decided by the government. It might be annoying for you to get caught speeding on a quiet road at 3 in the morning, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the rules applied 24 hours a day, not just when it's "a bit busy out", or you wanted to get home a little quicker. Likewise, they apply to all of us, not just those of you who think they aren't strictly fair.

We might not like it, but the law is there, so deal with it. I wouldn't go out and break someone's nose and then claim I shouldn't be prosecuted because I didn't realise the police were watching me do it...

1) Agreed but the Police Forces do get their next years budget from the Government partly based on figures that include the Traffic Offences. Therefore it's beneficial to them to catch motorists to increase their payout.

2) Agreed again BUT they could lower the traffic budget and put it towards real policing maybe even transfer some officers from traffic to other duties.

My main problem is that supporters of speed cameras say it is for safety NOT for revenue conllection .... my arse !!!

If that's the case then drop the fine and just keep the points. That would actually make it fairer as well as peoples incomes differ so much. Three points is three points and it makes no difference who you are.

 

[tedebear]

In Victoria, Australia they have hidden, temporary speed cameras set up by the roadside. They do not advertise the fact, and actually have outsourced the maintenance and positioning of the camera so you are not looking for a Jam Sandwich by the side of the road, it could be any old car and often is...


ALSO, on my traffic in Oz whinge; Victorian Police have become the first Police Force in the world to introduce random DRUG TESTING. THey pull you over, swab your mouth and can find THC (the active component of marijuana) or Meth Amphetamine in your saliva. Depending how much they find they can work out if you are off your head or not and will fine you in line with standard DRINK driving policy.

Brings a new meaning to speeding.................

exactly why I don't moan about speed cameras over here - everyone has it easy here - it will get worse and the more people keep it in the news the quicker it will get worse...

 

[Jam The Man]

seems to me sussex police, for the last couple of months, have been siting these money making machines on wheels, anywhere they can, probably to boost their christmas party funds.

Ignorant twat

 

[tedebear]

Re: Re: Fecking Police Mobile Speed Traps

Ignorant twat

I thought twat refers to a part of the female anatomy? if so of course its ignorant it has no brain?

I'll never get the hang of the language in this country...

 

[moggy]

Radar Gun
-------------

Radar speed detectors are an application of a principle in physics called the Doppler Effect. Here's a brief explanation of how they work. When a speed gun is triggered, a beam of high frequency radar waves is directed outward from the gun. If the beam hits another object, it is reflected back into the gun.

If the object the beam hits is stationary, the reflected beam is at the same frequency as the original one. If the object is moving towards or away from the gun, however, the frequency is 'shifted' - lower if the object is moving away from the gun, higher if coming towards it. The computer within the speed gun compares the outgoing and incoming frequencies, and calculates the speed of the moving object from the difference between them. If the moving object is your car, and the reading shows you are exceeding the speed limit, you can expect to be prosecuted.

That's fine in theory, but in practice radar speed guns do not always work as they should. The following are just some situations in which a radar speed gun may give a false reading.

Like a torch beam, the beam sent from a radar speed gun spreads out in all directions the further it is from the gun. If another object in a gun's field of vision is moving faster than you, the device will show its speed rather than yours.

The gun must be pointed directly at your car to give an accurate reading. If it is at an angle, the speed it shows will be incorrect (this is known as the cosine factor).

Radar waves cannot pass through solid objects, so anything from the overhanging branch of a tree to a roadside bridge or telegraph pole can distort the reading.

Wind and rain may also affect the accuracy of radar speed guns, causing them to display false readings.

Electrical equipment operating nearby can also interfere with these devices' correct operation. This includes mobile phone masts, radio and TV transmitters, overhead power lines and electricity generators. Devices used on board vehicles (including police cars) such as CB radios, scanners and mobile phones can also create false readings.

The arm movement of the police officer using the gun can also affect the reading shown. If he draws the gun rapidly and fires it, the speed of his arm movement will be added to the reading!

Radar speed guns should also never be used from within a vehicle, as the metal and glass of the vehicle interfere with their correct operation. The movement of air from a windscreen demister or air conditioning can also affect the readings.

For all these reasons, you should never assume that this technology is infallible. If you are stopped by a police officer using a radar speed gun, therefore, never admit the offence because you think the reading on the device 'must' be correct.

Of course, the police are well aware of these shortcomings too, and the potential for drivers to avoid prosecution by claiming possible errors in the way in which they were deployed. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) produces a national guidance manual which all police forces are meant to abide by. The main points are as follows:

Any officer using a speed detection device must be properly trained in its operation.

The device must be operated by an officer on foot, not from a vehicle.

All checks must be made from a position clearly visible to the public and oncoming motorists (no hiding behind bushes!).

A device must not be used when more than one vehicle is in the device's field of view.

It must not be pointed at the road waiting for a vehicle to appear. Speed guns must only be used to corroborate an officer's belief that the vehicle in question is exceeding the speed limit.

The device should be pointed directly at the approaching target vehicle, parallel to the road, eliminating any significant up or down tilt.

Once a reading has appeared on the display, the radar device should be held steady, pointing along the road for a duration of not less than three seconds. At the end of this period the officer presses a trigger on the gun and the reading is then 'locked in' and may be used as evidence.

It follows from this that the distance an operator can see along a road must be enough to cover the initial observation of the vehicle and assessment of its speed, the distance the vehicle travels during its three-second check, and the vehicle's stopping distance when signalled to do so.

If a vehicle is travelling at 50 mph, the distance travelled in three seconds will be 67 metres and the stopping distance 53.3 metres, giving a total distance of 120.3 metres. Allowing another three seconds for the initial assessment gives a total distance of 187.3 metres. It follows that a radar gun should not be used when there is not at least 187.3 metres (in this case) of clear view along the road.

Radar speed guns must also be professionally calibrated at least once a year and a certificate issued. In addition, both before and after they are used for any tour of duty, they are supposed to be checked against a police vehicle fitted with a certified calibrated speedometer at a speed compatible with the sites to be checked. An error margin of plus or minus two miles per hour is allowed. Performing this check requires two officers - one to operate the gun, one to drive the car - and the check must be recorded in the officers' notebooks. In practice there are many occasions when this check is not performed but the device is still used for speed checks.

If any of the above operating requirements have not been met, you may be able to argue in court that your speed has been misread. If you can introduce an element of doubt as to whether the correct procedures were followed, the magistrates may have no alternative but to find you not guilty.