Theses sought of driver should be taken of the road for good

viv1969 said:
The cameras may be hidden, they may be in plain sight and painted loud enough to make your eyes bleed.
The fact remains that you will only ever get "done" for speeding if you are, in fact speeding.
And yes I have driven in excess of the limit, and no I have never received any points etc.
However, if I had, I wouldn't bleat about it.
Click to expand...

I don't think "people" would mind so much, if the authorities actually admitted what they are,
revenue collectors, not safety camera's designed to make people slow down.
If they were for that purpose, the majority wouldn't be "stealth camera's"
They would be highly visible, in plain sight.
Yes they do make you slow down, in that area once you've been caught,
and paid £60 (is it?) for the privilege.

They are also supposed to be in accident black spots,
so why are none (certainly not that I have seen) on double bends blind bends, and other high risk area's.
Preferring to install them on long straights, and or just a few yards inside where the speed limit drops.

One of life's great mysteries I guess.
Yes I admit I have been caught a couple of times,
one fixed camera, behind an over hanging willow tree.
So much so I had to go back to the area, to actually see if there really was a camera in the branches

And the other an officer of the law hiding behind a tall privet hedge,
Just popping his head round the side as I was within a few yards.
Had he been stood to the side of the road, of course I would have seen him and slowed down,
That would have been job done, purpose served.
Without the need to collect 60 quid (or passing go :D)

There is another one that people may not be aware of, 3 "lines" set in the road,
that the officers "can connect to", and sit in an unmarked vehicle, just off to the side.
;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
neil_g said:
Simple solution.. Don't speed :p
Click to expand...
Where's the fun in that? :D

But again, I say its the misnomer that gets peoples backs up,
I would suggest more than being caught.
Just call them what they are, another way to get money out of motor-terrorists :p
 
CaveDweller said:
Apart from motoring convictions, no other crimes were mentioned. Yes torture should be used for all sorts...peados, murderers, terrorists, wife beaters etc etc...and I'd be glad to carry it out (y)
Click to expand...

I really can't work out if you are joking or not. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are.

If you are not then, well, I'm speechless.

Cheers.
 
neil_g said:
. I think its just a tax on daft people, rather them than putting taxes up :p
Click to expand...
No need to thank me, just send money in a brown envelope :D
 
posiview said:
I really can't work out if you are joking or not. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are.

If you are not then, well, I'm speechless.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

yes...joking lol. I'll make my feelings more obvious next time so I don't freak anyone out. I did mean the torture part though, just not carrying it out lol.
 
hmmm.. anyone who says they have never sped before either doesn't drive or is lying. I am not condoning what the OP posted in any way but was taught to drive by a police traffic driver, I was taught that when overtaking another vehicle, pretty much spend as little time on the wrong side of the road as possible..... and in doing so, yuo may exceed the limit (which is generally going to be a 60 - or round here a 50) .. when yuo return to your side of the road you adjust your speed to what is both the limit and safe.
 
Cobra said:
I don't think "people" would mind so much, if the authorities actually admitted what they are,
revenue collectors, not safety camera's designed to make people slow down.
If they were for that purpose, the majority wouldn't be "stealth camera's"
They would be highly visible, in plain sight.
Yes they do make you slow down, in that area once you've been caught,
and paid £60 (is it?) for the privilege.

They are also supposed to be in accident black spots,
so why are none (certainly not that I have seen) on double bends blind bends, and other high risk area's.
Preferring to install them on long straights, and or just a few yards inside where the speed limit drops.

One of life's great mysteries I guess.
Yes I admit I have been caught a couple of times,
one fixed camera, behind an over hanging willow tree.
So much so I had to go back to the area, to actually see if there really was a camera in the branches

And the other an officer of the law hiding behind a tall privet hedge,
Just popping his head round the side as I was within a few yards.
Had he been stood to the side of the road, of course I would have seen him and slowed down,
That would have been job done, purpose served.
Without the need to collect 60 quid (or passing go :D)

There is another one that people may not be aware of, 3 "lines" set in the road,
that the officers "can connect to", and sit in an unmarked vehicle, just off to the side.
;)
Click to expand...

They once were able to be claimed as such as, as the scammerships kept the money and had no limits, so placed more and more cameras, money rolled in, departments got bigger and more important, some true empire building ensued. Then the number of fixed cameras were restricted to a set number, so no more could go in, so they moved to more mobiles, vans and motorbikes. Wiltshire famously went over the top, vans on bridges over the m4 shooting fish in a barrel (although illegally parked obstructing the pavement for which they were reported and had to stop) and the infamous a303 roadworks refund to 5600 drivers.

When the govt took the money and then redistributed it, then it reigned in their excesses. As such I don't think k you an claim them as revenue generators these days.

However speed cameras when placed in sensible positions can improve road safety, but too often the camera is placed on the only straight suitable for overtaking. In the period that swindon removed the cameras it made no difference to the accident figures (if we ignore the first year they declined as an abnormally).
Controlling the speed through road works, in congestion and controlling accident black spots are all good ideas, but I'd suggest until recently the most significant reduction in speeding was when fuel went to over £1.30 a litre.

When speeding was first targeted, there were accusations it was a distraction to the poor crime clear up figures, however through a number of factors, deaths have fallen on uk roads by approx 40% over the last ten years. That can only be a good thing.
 
Byker28i said:
In the period that swindon removed the cameras it made no difference to the accident figures (if we ignore the first year they declined as an abnormally).
Click to expand...
Do you remember the one that "kept losing its head? :D
And no, it wasn't anything to do with me, I just used to pass it regularly at one time

Byker28i said:
but I'd suggest until recently the most significant reduction in speeding was when fuel went to over £1.30 a litre.
, however through a number of factors, deaths have fallen on uk roads by approx 40% over the last ten years. That can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...
Indeed, no one can argue with that.
 
There's no misnomer.
Within the speed limit = no infringement.
 
I think my post is getting a bit astray,my main point being this bloke as the Judge said has showed a complete disregard for anybody else on the road.

46 offence 3 driving bans already, now killing two people is it about time we said to him,you have proved your not going to learn,therefore you will not be allow to ever have a driving licence again full stop.
 
Byker28i said:
Lol, 2600 at folly bottom, 25000 at chideock, there's been several incidents of incorrect prosecutions, but generally yes.
Click to expand...

If they're incorrect with prood...knock yourself out lol
 
viv1969 said:
There's no misnomer.
Within the speed limit = no infringement.
Click to expand...
The misnomer I referred to was calling them safety camera's.
That they are not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
simonblue said:
I think my post is getting a bit astray,my main point being this bloke as the Judge said has showed a complete disregard for anybody else on the road.

46 offence 3 driving bans already, now killing two people is it about time we said to him,you have proved your not going to learn,therefore you will not be allow to ever have a driving licence again full stop.
Click to expand...


Exactly, plus a very long prison term IMO.
 
simonblue said:
I think my post is getting a bit astray,my main point being this bloke as the Judge said has showed a complete disregard for anybody else on the road.

46 offence 3 driving bans already, now killing two people is it about time we said to him,you have proved your not going to learn,therefore you will not be allow to ever have a driving licence again full stop.
Click to expand...
This is OoF it did well to get that far ;)

However back on track, yes he is a bloody nightmare and
its time he was taken off the roads, one way or another.
 
The misnomer I referred to was calling them safety camera's.
Click to expand...

I agree, in these days though of newvo bollockspeak, it's the way things are referred to. Personally, I think they should have been called "catch the knob cameras". Lets call a shovel a shovel!

I'd suggest until recently the most significant reduction in speeding was when fuel went to over £1.30 a litre.
Click to expand...

That was a theory put forward some years ago, now that my local Tescos is knocking out diesel at 123.9, it will be interesting to see if the rates go back up again. Lets hope not, because if they do we can all work out what will follow!

Anyway, back to your point Cobra, people have never, in the history of the internal combustion engine liked it when speed limits are enforced. Apparently there were more complaints against police in the days when traffic used to hand out summonses like confetti than for any other reason.

Most drivers I stopped were at least initially on the grounds of excess speed. Question 1 was a standard, "Why have I stopped you?", followed inevitably by "I don't know", followed by "How fast were you going? And whats the speed limit?" These should be questions on Pointless, as none of our 100 people surveyed gave the correct answers.
 
Last edited:
ChasG said:
I would much prefer that drivers watch the road than be constantly checking for IMHO a minor infraction.
Click to expand...

It takes less time to check your speed than it does to look in your mirrors and you don't need to do it so often. It's really not a big problem.


Steve.
 
I constantly update the mirrors when I drive so I know what's behind me. I look ahead and scan the horizon, middle distance and then foreground in a Z pattern. I then update the mirrors again - it's a continuous process. On a weekly basis I check the condition of my tyres, air and rigidly stick to speed limits. I've been to too many fatal RTCs and its brutal. It's not just the speeders, it's the texters, and people who are tired and fall asleep at the wheel that are also a risk to themselves and other road users. It's a sobering thought that as you approach the next bend, there could be someone in the opposite lane at speed messing about on their phone.
 
Bernie174 said:
That was a theory put forward some years ago, now that my local Tescos is knocking out diesel at 123.9, it will be interesting to see if the rates go back up again. Lets hope not, because if they do we can all work out what will follow!
Click to expand...

I think theres been enough of a change in attitude that speeding won't increase just because fuel prices come down.
 
Steve Smith said:
Same here. It's a continuous left mirror, ahead, right mirror, ahead... repeat. It's not a big deal to look at the speedometer every now and then.
Steve
Click to expand...

Lets be honest here, the majority of drivers are manoeuver, indicate (if lucky) then mirror to see who's so upset
 
Byker28i said:
Lets be honest here, the majority of drivers are manoeuver, indicate (if lucky)
Click to expand...

The majority of drivers who do actually indicate seem to do it only as they are turning the wheel to go round the corner. The indicator must be the easiest and most convenient control to use whilst your hands are on the wheel yet it is the least used. Anyone would think it takes Herculian strength to operate and it's hidden behind the back seats.


Steve.
 
simonblue said:
I think my post is getting a bit astray,my main point being this bloke as the Judge said has showed a complete disregard for anybody else on the road.

46 offence 3 driving bans already, now killing two people is it about time we said to him,you have proved your not going to learn,therefore you will not be allow to ever have a driving licence again full stop.
Click to expand...
Yep, I was taught the same on my standard driving test and my advanced. I still overtake the same way now too but find I overtake less than I did - maybe that is an age thing.
 
ST4 said:
Points drop off after 4 or 5 years
Click to expand...
Points are live for 3 years from date of conviction
However, once found guilty of the offence in court, the prosecution can present relevant previous convictions within the last 10 years
It is unusual for the court to be given the full list of offences from the age of 16 (20 years)
Sadly, I can see the defence agent raising an appeal based on that
However, the article has not covered why two charges were made, other than they were for separate complaints, but it is covered elsewhere; one count for Death by Careless Driving and one count for Dangerous Driving
The first was for the resultant deaths 27 November 2012
The second for excessive minimum speed between 25 October and 27 November 2012, as provided by the in-car data
Ironically this is a higher sentence than had it just been Death by Dangerous Driving
However, the maximum Driving Licence suspension (before applying for a new Driving Licence) remains at 10 years
It would also appear the court was referring to one live driving offence on the Driving Licence (as at 27 November 2012)
I would need to read the full court transcript to make sure
 
Bernie174 said:
I agree, in these days though of newvo bollockspeak, it's the way things are referred to. Personally, I think they should have been called "catch the knob cameras". Lets call a shovel a shovel!
Click to expand...
You missed out lets tax the motorist even further.



Bernie174 said:
Anyway, back to your point Cobra, people have never, in the history of the internal combustion engine liked it when speed limits are enforced. Apparently there were more complaints against police in the days when traffic used to hand out summonses like confetti than for any other reason.

Most drivers I stopped were at least initially on the grounds of excess speed. Question 1 was a standard, "Why have I stopped you?", followed inevitably by "I don't know", followed by "How fast were you going? And whats the speed limit?" These should be questions on Pointless, as none of our 100 people surveyed gave the correct answers.
Click to expand...
But lets face it, even when caught bang to rights, are people going to admit to breaking the law?
:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Most drivers I stopped were at least initially on the grounds of excess speed. Question 1 was a standard, "Why have I stopped you?", followed inevitably by "I don't know", followed by "How fast were you going? And whats the speed limit?" These should be questions on Pointless, as none of our 100 people surveyed gave the correct answers.
Click to expand...

Ah see in Civilian training school we are always told that a police officer likes to play 'the haggling game' and part of it is to start with these pointless questions as it's blatently obvious as to why the stop occured, and at what speed the officer recorded you at, it's just at what speed the officer is going to claim. The 'you were doing 80' meant I was doing 80 to catch you up very quickly. We are also advised not to shortcut the process and deprive the officer of his of his right to ask the questions in the order he is taught so as not to confuse him.
We then oroceed with the haggling game as both parties like to start at the limits of unbeliveability before haggling down to somewhere near to the actual speed.

:D
 
One also has to discover if the officer is playing offender bingo, in which case to put him into a good mood and let him accumulate some points one should introduce well known phrases into the discussion.

Ten points scorers are:
"Haven't you better things to do"
"You should be out catching real criminals"

"My dad's a copper"and "I'm very good friends of the chief constable" have recently been down graded to 5 points

"I'm sorry officer I shouldn't have been texting whilst driving, but you do silly things when drunk" is worth 50 points.

Should the officer swear at any time, then the game is over. This is usually indicated with the phrase "Right that's it, you're f***king nicked" :D
 
Cobra said:
But lets face it, even when caught bang to rights, are people going to admit to breaking the law?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who would like to see zero tolerance on every crime... except speeding when they see themselves as victims rather than offenders once caught.


Steve.
 
The last time I was done,over 20 yrs ago,I was livid. It was my own fault, I was going down the motorway on the bike, Sunday afternoon little traffic and what traffic was there all pulled over to let me by.
Lets be honest it would be rude not to make progress.

Looked down saw I was speeding and rolled off the gas. Too late. Then blue light, police officer behind me.

I put my hands up to it, told him I was annoyed that I had gone so fast - no fun on motorway.

The stupid question was, after chat "Do you know why I am doing you?" my response "Because I was riding too fast?"
His response was "No - for these drivers" - indicating passing vehicles.

I pointed out that the ones who had seen me pulled over obviously believed that I had been done and the ones passing now had no idea why I had been stopped
 
Byker28i said:
One also has to discover if the officer is playing offender bingo, in which case to put him into a good mood and let him accumulate some points one should introduce well known phrases into the discussion.
Click to expand...
I've not heard of that one, but I do know that "Snooker speeding" exists, well I guess its dead boring on nights,
just cruising up and down a motorway in a high speed pursuit car and sticking to the "limit"

Steve Smith said:
There are a lot of people who would like to see zero tolerance on every crime... except speeding when they see themselves as victims rather than offenders once caught. Steve.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!
:D
 
Steve Smith said:
There are a lot of people who would like to see zero tolerance on every crime... except speeding when they see themselves as victims rather than offenders once caught.


Steve.
Click to expand...

how do you define a conservative ? - a liberal who's just be the victim of crime

how do you define a liberal ? - a conservative who's just been arrested

(in the non political sense)
 
Ah see in Civilian training school we are always told that a police officer likes to play 'the haggling game' and part of it is to start with these pointless questions as it's blatently obvious as to why the stop occured, and at what speed the officer recorded you at, it's just at what speed the officer is going to claim. The 'you were doing 80' meant I was doing 80 to catch you up very quickly. We are also advised not to shortcut the process and deprive the officer of his of his right to ask the questions in the order he is taught so as not to confuse him.
We then oroceed with the haggling game as both parties like to start at the limits of unbeliveability before haggling down to somewhere near to the actual speed.
Click to expand...

Again, all wrong. Mostly, I didn't care what speed the driver was doing, it mattered not anyway, excess speed was speed limit plus 1. If I'd ever prosecuted a speeder, which I didn't, it was for the Magistrates to decide what sentence based on degree.
My interest was proper crime, not traffic, although we could stop anyone driving simply to look at documents, it was much better to have another reason, especially with breath testing. If someone was daft enough to drive above the speed limit in front of me, then so be it, they give me a very good reason to stop...and xmas came early time and time again with other offences.
Besides, the line of questions and answers was evidence of WDC, or careless driving as is now. Haggling doesn't matter much in those circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top