Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
Read the current newsletter! Weekly
Newsletter
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
MacFixer, the iPhone, iPod, and iPad specialists
Pocket GPS World - SatNavs | GPS | Speed Cameras: Forums

Pocket GPS World :: View topic - Speed Camera Rant
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in for private messagesLog in for private messages   Log inLog in 

Speed Camera Rant
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Database
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Darren
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hoorah for common sense (at least in Scotland) Thumbs Up
_________________
Darren Griffin - Editor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Skippy
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12
Posts: 2946
Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83S 174.75E

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I find interesting is that APCO (Association of Chief Police Officers) claim 69% of people speed in a 30MPH limit and 29% in a 40 limit.

So, pretty much everyone speeds, how come speed is a factor in only one third of crashes?

The other thing they gloss over is that in a fair percentage of the crashes where speed is a factor, the vehicles involved were not actually exceeding the speed limit, just traveling too fast for the conditions.

So, in the year 2000 3409 people were killed in crashes. Lets say that in 1/3 of these, speed was a factor (not the only factor, but a factor none the less). So that makes 1,136 killed in speed related crashed.

Now if in half of these crashes, the speed was not in excess of the speed limit but was too fast for the conditions. So, even if there was a speed camera at the crash site, the vehicle would have still been traveling at the same speed as it was within the speed limit.

So that makes 568 killed while exceeding the speed limit. So, is this is a serious problem which we need to throw all of our policing resources at?

Well, consider that 761 people were murdered in 1999. That's more than were killed while exceeding the speed limit! So, you have more chance of being murdered than being killed while speeding.

So, what are we doing about all these murders taking place then?

CM4 wrote:
When I was learning to drive (a few years ago) my driving instructor told me that most speed cameras have a 10% tolerence of speed, Anybody know it this still applies?


Pretty much. It's 10% plus 2 MPH, so 79 on a motorway etc. You can read the guidelines for yourself here:

http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/index.html

Also, did you know that the UK roads are the safest in the world both per 100,000 cars and per million miles driven. Tell that to a cop next time he is writing you a ticket.

Drive safe!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darren
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darren wrote:
The 10% guideline is unofficial and Forces are not required to adhere to it. There have been some high profile stories lately where drivers have been prosecuted for exceeding the limits by less than this figure.


Having just read the last post I noticed that I mis-read the original question regarding the 10% rule. May I correct my original reply quoted above by clarifying that the 10% guideline I was speaking of was that which applied to speeding offences detected by Police Officers (I missed the reference to cameras Embarassed ) it is a not a firm and fast rule and some forces pay no heed to it.

Having said that I would far rather speeding offence detection was left to human beings who can use their expertise, common sense and appreciation of the driving conditions that existed at the time when deciding whether a prosecution or a rollocking were more appropriate Happy
_________________
Darren Griffin - Editor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
phil4
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Oct 28, 2003
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you seen this camera:

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/381.htm

If that's not there to tax anyone who's never driven on the road before, I don't know what is.

I always try and slow to the speed limit at or before it starts, but I know most people don't... and so they'd get taxed. Not good.

Like other's above I always feel horribly unsafe slowing for some speed limits. The worst is when I slow for temporary speed limits on the motorywas during roadworks. Like the M42 at the moment. 50mph that noone seems to stick to, including truck drivers (some of whom seem to get annoyed when you do stick to the limit). Feels mighty unsafe then.

The ABD site linked to above is very anti-camera, worth a read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RickyTwoShirts
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:01 pm    Post subject: Speed Camera Rant Reply with quote

I was caught by a mobile set up on the edge of 40mph / derestricted zone where all signs of civilisation had long since disappeared. I was offered a 60 fixed penalty and three points. Unfortunately, I was on my way to France and the policeman suggested that I ought to hold onto my licence. As a result the magistrate court took 130 from me and FOUR points and took so long to return my licence that I din't have it with me for my next trip to France. Must be a moral here somewhere Laughing

It's OK by me if the government wants to collect revenue in this way but they really should drop all the pretence of it being a safety measure. Perhaps they are really trying to reduce the congestion on our roads by banning all motorists under the topping up procedure. If it's the money they want they should forget the points; if it's an empty roads policy then forget the money. But I suppose they want it all ways.

If they really want to reduce accidents at black spots I am sure that suitable signage would be most effective, perhaps coupled with the odd traffic policeman in a brightly marked car.

The more signs, cameras and changing speed limits there are the more difficult it is to concentrate on driving the car. It is often difficult to see why a dual carriage-way road almost to motorway standards needs a 40 mph limit. Similarly 30 mph might be dangerous at 10:00 am but not 10:00 pm. I'm all for speed limits being advisory with traffic cops looking out for dangerous behaviour.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chris.hevey
Occasional Visitor


Joined: 21/07/2003 18:59:41
Posts: 31
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 10% thing was in ACPO (Assoc. of Chief Police Officers) guidance to forces and was voluntary.

The important definitions are in the Road Traffic Act and are less generous than the ACPO guidelines. I forget what they are but it was something like speedlimit + 2 mph + 4% of speedlimit to make allowance for inaccuracy of speedometers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Skippy
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12
Posts: 2946
Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83S 174.75E

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chris.hevey wrote:
The 10% thing was in ACPO (Assoc. of Chief Police Officers) guidance to forces and was voluntary.

The important definitions are in the Road Traffic Act and are less generous than the ACPO guidelines. I forget what they are but it was something like speedlimit + 2 mph + 4% of speedlimit to make allowance for inaccuracy of speedometers?


According to EC Community Directive 75/443(97/39), speedometers have to read between 0 and 10% fast, so the "speedometer reading too slow" defense would not stand up in court.

I think the allowance in the ACPO guidelines is more in the interests of "Fair Play" than making allowances for speedometer accuracies. For example, if you get nicked because you were driving at an indicated 90MPH and the police book you for doing 85, then you can't really complain too much.

As Chris points out though, this is voluntary - if you are tailgating on a frosty motorway in thick fog at 75 MPH then they police could book you for speeding a few MPH over the limit as an alternative to spending a day in court on a driving without due care charge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chris.hevey
Occasional Visitor


Joined: 21/07/2003 18:59:41
Posts: 31
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like a lot of our legislation, our dear old Road Traffic Act has it roots in the Horse and Cart days when speedos were just a magnet whirling round in a tin box in the dash giving out fairly arbitrary readings - and that's the Act they use to nick you. Nice. I think London cabbies can still get nicked if they don't have a bale of hay in the boot for their horse, but by the same token they are allowed to get out and pee up against one of their wheels - although that could just be an urban myth.

The whole trouble is that the entire subject is dominated by outdated and misguided eutopian thinkers who are motivated enough to get up in their homespun cardies and sandals and lobby people who don't understand or care. Two-Jags for Chrissakes. Just like the anti-smoking lobby (let's not get into that one!) Us ordinary joes just complain a bit and pay the fines. And the road tax. And car purchase tax. And the insane fuel prices. And sit in jams on Victorian roads. And pay ludicrous insurance. And.. err... whinge in web forums.

I saw the most wonderful thing the other day. We had three cameras here in Bletchley, none of which were in a particularly dangerous location. I drove past the one in Fenny Stratford and someone had cut its head off with a blow torch or something. A little tear of joy came to my eye. Some ordinary Joe had just got a little too off and gone out and done something about it. A Robin Hood. A Johhny Wilkinson. Something brave and extraordinary that I would love to do if I had the bottle. One of us. Like Spitfire pilots. Or the "Clamp Fairies" who used to go around London removing wheel clamps. Top Lads All*. Turns out whoever it was cut all three cameras down. YES!!!!!

*and lasses!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dave
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 6460
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps you should get your camrea out quick and post some pics to this site http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chris.hevey
Occasional Visitor


Joined: 21/07/2003 18:59:41
Posts: 31
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent idea. Regrettably the Police, or whoever, have taken the posts down. Doh! Probably on 'elf an' safety grounds - of course, nothing to do with them being a daily reminder of their shame - that might incite others to do same.

I assume this is while they wait for their other cameras to raise enough revenue to buy new ones. I think a post with camera box costs less than 10,000 inc. labour, so I suspect they'll be back in about 20 minutes or so. (Actually, they probably get bulk discount - make that 15 mins.) (Anyway, why bother paying insurance premiums when you have your own pots of gold?)

I do hope our heroes managed to bag a head that actually had a camera in it. I believe the actual working parts of a GATSO are the seriously expensive bits, not the posts which are realtively cheap.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Darren
Pocket GPS Staff
Pocket GPS Staff


Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A 20yr old man was recently convicted of criminal damage to a Gatso camera and received a 12month custodial sentence.
_________________
Darren Griffin - Editor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
chris.hevey
Occasional Visitor


Joined: 21/07/2003 18:59:41
Posts: 31
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poor sod. The establishment does not like this kind of behaviour. Rightly I suppose, otherwise we'd have anarchy. I'd imagine the judge had some very stern things to say - the summing up probably went a bit like this :

Vengance Link

Scary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jaguar
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Nov 26, 2003
Posts: 14
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:25 pm    Post subject: Disabling Gatsos Reply with quote

Surely the most intelligent way to disable a Gasto camera is to spray black paint carefully (so as not to make it obvious) onto the lens, not onto the flash. That way it will appear to the tax collectors that it's working but it won't render any usable pictures.

Of course I'd never have the guts to do this myself but I'd gladly stand a few rounds at the pub for anyone who did. :D

Jaguar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 6460
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have to be careful regarding paint, because don't forget at how bright the flash becomes, the number plate reflects, and although it may make it look like it's pitch black out there, you may still see a number plate. Putting a piece of gray card up against the lens would probably work better and not be as messy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Skippy
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12
Posts: 2946
Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83S 174.75E

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Putting something over the camera window would work just as well as spray painting the camera. They could convict you of "criminal damage" either since you wouldn't actually damage the Gatso.

I remember there was a case years ago where someone removed a local authority wheel clamp from his car. They council tried to charge him with criminal damage but the bloke had dismantled the car's suspension to remove it and since he had not damaged the clamp they couldn't do anything about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message







Posted: Today    Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Database All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group
phpBB port v2.1 based on Tom Nitzschner's phpbb2.0.6 upgraded to phpBB 2.0.4 standalone was developed and tested by:
ArtificialIntel, ChatServ, mikem,
sixonetonoffun and Paul Laudanski (aka Zhen-Xjell).

Version 2.1 by Nuke Cops 2003 http://www.nukecops.com

Make a Donation



CamerAlert Database

Click here for the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database

Download Speed Camera Database
20.064 (22 Jun 22)



WORLDWIDE SPEED CAMERA SPOTTERS WANTED!

Click here to submit camera positions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database


12mth Subscriber memberships awarded every week for verified new camera reports!

Submit Speed Camera Locations Now


CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







Terms & Privacy


GPS Shopping