A blatant attempt to trap motorists?

[Cobra]

You decide............

Whenever the police Anti speeding "tactics" are mentioned in out local paper
the police force ( Thames Valley) issues statements along the lines of
" we are only trying to reduce speeding not trap motorists"

I also thought that when the police were working in or near a road they
HAD to wear their florescent jackets?

Let me set the scene, I was on my way home in the "rush hour"
the sun was low but still had a lot of strength in it

There is a fairly wide entrance to a car park between the houses, on this particular stretch of road, this is turn
is high fenced and gated.

The entrance was in "shadow" due to the low sun, the fence and the surrounding houses.

As I approached there were 3 possibly 4 police officers in the "recess" dresses all in black not a piece of florescent amoungst them

There was no police vehicle in sight either,
I have no idea where that was parked but you can bet that it wasn't far away.

And yes you guessed it one was holding and targeting the on-coming traffic
With a revenue collector from The same direction I was travelling in................

( no I didn't before anyone asks )

As there is also a slight bend and rise in the road just here
they were pretty much obscured by the road, houses and as they were all in black the shadows.


Covert? I would say so...........

( this is not about the rights and wrongs of speedings either, just the ethical way it was carried out
Prove to me that they were NOT out to catch speeding motorists but to make them slow down as per their supposed brief!

 

[russdaz]

I know the street works act requires any contractors working on the high way needs hi-vis, the mininuim length of sleeve actually changes to depenant on the speed off the road.

If i get injuried by a car for example while not wearing a hi-vis the driver could actually sue me for damages, yet i wouldnt get anything. I would have thought that also applies to the police.

If i remember i'll ak my freind at the gym who is a traffic cop.

 

[ChrisMClark]

So there we go, if you see a rozzer without a viz-vest on, run the ****er over and sue!

 

[GeForce Junky]

I think the law changed a few years agos. Previously police with speed cameras had to be visible, but now they don't. I remember reading in the news about police in Wales hiding in the back of a horse box.

 

[Just Dave]

Join the AA and bring back the saluting AA patrolman, Clicky Link if you dont remember them

 

[Cobra]

. I remember reading in the news about police in Wales hiding in the back of a horse box.

I saw the pictures, but was never sure whether it was a wind up or not..You can see the next scenario though can't you ?
Someone tanking it along that road ( and it does happen)
Mr Plod steps out raises an arm to stop said motorist
being "almost invisible" or not immediately recognisable as a ossifer of the law
and splat

 

[Steep]

The point is you (the driver) shouldn't be speeding in the first place.

If you are speeding and get caught, shut up and pay the penalty, take responsibility for your actions. Wether the police were in yellow jackets or dressed up as kangaroos it doesn't matter, you'll only get caught if you break the law.

 

[ChrisMClark]

The point is you (the driver) shouldn't be speeding in the first place.

If you are speeding and get caught, shut up and pay the penalty, take responsibility for your actions. Wether the police were in yellow jackets or dressed up as kangaroos it doesn't matter, you'll only get caught if you break the law.

I don't think Chris meant he was speeding, but rather asking for opinions on whether the police have to waer viz jackets or not. And if they should, why wasn't the officer in question wearing his. Everytime I see a thread about speeding etc there are always the cries of 'well you shouldn't have been speeding'. But in fairness, if speeding is illegal and therefore we should do it, then the copper should have been wearing his jacket, if that was indeed required by law.

 

[Cobra]

The point is you (the driver) shouldn't be speeding in the first place.

If you are speeding and get caught, shut up and pay the penalty, take responsibility for your actions. Wether the police were in yellow jackets or dressed up as kangaroos it doesn't matter, you'll only get caught if you break the law.

<Cheers Chris >

I wasn't speeding
Just asking for opinions ( as above) as to where they were actually deliberately
targeting motorists to collect revenue........
Or doing as the press release says "we are only trying to reduce speeding not trap motorists"
By hiding in the shadows dress in black.

Now there's a thought if I were dressed in black hiding in the shadows
with a camera, how long before I was moved along :shrug:

 

[ChrisMClark]

Now there's a thought if I were dressed in black hiding in the shadows
with a camera, how long before I was moved along :shrug:

But your dodgy lookin' anyway, you slithery git

 

[Cobra]

But your dodgy lookin' anyway, you slithery git

Well there is that I guess
Does pink and black go together :shrug:

 

[Marc]

The point is you (the driver) shouldn't be speeding in the first place.

If you are speeding and get caught, shut up and pay the penalty, take responsibility for your actions. Wether the police were in yellow jackets or dressed up as kangaroos it doesn't matter, you'll only get caught if you break the law.

But the whole point is that they should be trying to prevent speeding. If you get caught speeding by hidden coppers then you get a ticket through your door a few days later, but you still could have had an accident at the time. If they are in plain view and you are forced to slow down then no speeding will have taken place and an accident may have been avoided.

 

[Steep]

Everytime I see a thread about speeding etc there are always the cries of 'well you shouldn't have been speeding'. But in fairness, if speeding is illegal and therefore we should do it, then the copper should have been wearing his jacket, if that was indeed required by law.

Everytime I see a thread about speeding, there are lots of replies about how unfair it is to try and trap poor motorists. Cobra using the phrase "And yes you guessed it one was holding and targeting the on-coming traffic with a revenue collector from the same direction I was travelling in" is just another example. As I said, it's about taking responsibility for your own actions, I've never been caught speeding but if I ever am you can be certain I will stfu and pay up even if the copper was rollock naked.

 

[Steep]

But the whole point is that they should be trying to prevent speeding. If you get caught speeding by hidden coppers then you get a ticket through your door a few days later, but you still could have had an accident at the time. If they are in plain view and you are forced to slow down then no speeding will have taken place and an accident may have been avoided.

If you are speeding and see a speed trap you slow down till you are past it then speed up again, collect enough speeding tickets and you won't be speeding anywhere for a long time.

 

[Marc]

If you are speeding and see a speed trap you slow down till you are past it then speed up again, collect enough speeding tickets and you won't be speeding anywhere for a long time.

It's a fair point but I still think prevention is best in the long run.

 

[Cobra]

If you are speeding and see a speed trap you slow down till you are past it then speed up again, collect enough speeding tickets and you won't be speeding anywhere for a long time.

Agreed but the opening post was not about the rights and wrongs of speeding but more about the police practises of enforcing it
Which in this case I don't believe they were even trying to with this "covert operation"
It was a blatant revenue collection point
hence my reference to "revenue collectors"

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

But the whole point is that they should be trying to prevent speeding. If you get caught speeding by hidden coppers then you get a ticket through your door a few days later, but you still could have had an accident at the time. If they are in plain view and you are forced to slow down then no speeding will have taken place and an accident may have been avoided.

OR the person sees the police and does an emergency stop (without checking rear view mirror).

Results in an accident and an insurance claim against the poor person behind who was only doing 30 in his skoda rather than 60 reducing to 15 in his BMW.


The whole hi-vis came about from too many people using loop holes to avoid their repsonsibilty - the same for painting the cameras yellow

 

[wack61]

I was in lincolnshire a few months ago, came out of a village doing 40mph which was the limit, as I got to the top of the hill there was a white van with the back window open and a camera poking out.

he'd put it so the sun was right behind it as you came up the hill, you couldn't see it at all until you were right on it.

It's all about money, when was the last time you saw one outside a school at 3pm where 35mph is dangerous, they'll be miles away on an open road that's had the limit dropped to 40 so there's plenty of easy targets

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

The last time I saw a mobile van was just inside a 30 where it drops from a 60.

Having said that less than two months ago there was an accident killing 4 and the driver then tried to kill himself when he found out he killed all the passengers.

I think police are justified getting people to slow down. Bring on the cameras that can scan the whole road rather than a fixed point, then people would have to stick to the speed limit for 1mile+, not 50 yards

 

[Cobra]

Bring on the cameras that can scan the whole road rather than a fixed point, then people would have to stick to the speed limit for 1mile+, not 50 yards

Actually I know someone that was caught on a strip of road that is "quite fast" ie in the country but long and straight.
no turnings no houses no accidents that I am aware off either
He knew that there are regularly speed trap vans parked in the layby
and slowed to 60 ( he was doing around the 70 mark in a 60)
He was "caught" when he found out, he went back and measured the point at which he slowed down to 60, to the point where the van was.
It was exactly 1 mile.
You can't even see the things (A small white van parked under overhanging trees) at that range

 

[hepburn]

You just need one of these

 

[Arkady]

Here we go again...once more this will degenerate into a slanging match between those who occasionally stray over the speed-limit and view Speed-Enforcement Cameras (their words, not mine) as an underhand method of generating revenue and those who adopt this Holier-Than-Thou attitude of "it's all your fault, you shouldn't be speeding in the first place, blah blah blah"...

That wasn't the question that was asked, Steep...was it?

UK Cops are required by Health and Safety Regs (no other reason) to wear Hi-Vis vests when working with traffic. The fact that they were not smacks of covert ops...
Are you certain it was a speed-check camera and not a VRN Ident camera? They may have been on the lookout for a particular car...
If it was a covert Speed-Camera you could argue the toss with them if you did recieve a ticket, as in the UK, cameras have to be 'advertised' - even the temporary vans are supposed to place temporary folding 'speed-camera' signs at least 300m from the camera position.

Although the huge and growing number of cameras is a concern to myself and many others at least we know where they are...
Unlike Germany where the cameras are not signposted, are usually painted dark grey or even camouflage (!), temporary cameras are occasionally positioned under army-style cammo scrim nets and temporary mobile cameras operate from the back of unmarked estate cars parked round the side of houses...
And technically, my Tom-Tom with speed camera info is illegal in Germany - residents here can't sign up for that service.
If they catch you with radar detectors they'll seize them and you'll get a fine. Plus cops here can just randomly stop you for a document check...you must have: full driver's licence, Insurance Docs (not a photo-copy) and Vehicle Log-Book in the car at all times. It's an on-the-spot fine if you don't.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I remember reading in the news about police in Wales hiding in the back of a horse box.

 

[Steve Smith]

The point is you (the driver) shouldn't be speeding in the first place.

If you are speeding and get caught, shut up and pay the penalty, take responsibility for your actions. Wether the police were in yellow jackets or dressed up as kangaroos it doesn't matter, you'll only get caught if you break the law.

I agree entirely. The argument about speed cameras being cash collectors is separate from the fact that they are there to catch criminals. Most people only argue against them after they have been caught speeding (I know this is not the case of the OP).

Speeding kills around 1000 people a year in this country. More than any other crime so obviously attempts must be made to reduce it.

For the people who think it's o.k. to go just a little bit over the speed limit, then by using the same logic, it must be o.k. to do a little bit of shoplifting so long as you don't take too much or to hurt someone a little bit so long as you don't kill them.


Steve.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I agree entirely. The argument about speed cameras being cash collectors is separate from the fact that they are there to catch criminals. Most people only argue against them after they have been caught speeding (I know this is not the case of the OP).

Speeding kills around 1000 people a year in this country. More than any other crime so obviously attempts must be made to reduce it.

For the people who think it's o.k. to go just a little bit over the speed limit, then by using the same logic, it must be o.k. to do a little bit of shoplifting so long as you don't take too much or to hurt someone a little bit so long as you don't kill them.


Steve.

A Dft study in 2006 concluded that exceeding the speed limit was a factor in 12 per cent of fatal road accidents, which means that 88% of road deaths aren't caused by speeding, yet by far the most effort is put into apprehending speeders.

Why? Simply because catching speeding motorists is the easiest way to generate revenue, short of taxing the air we breathe...

 

[mrgubby]

using the same logic, it must be o.k. to do a little bit of shoplifting so long as you don't take too much or to hurt someone a little bit so long as you don't kill them.

Steve.

Speeding is exceeding a arbitary numerical limit with no scientific basis, you can't slightly steal or murder :bang:

If a Speed Camera is all about Safety, why tell somebody 3 weeks later that they were at risk of killing / being killed :shrug:

 

[Steve Smith]

Why? Simply because catching speeding motorists is the easiest way to generate revenue, short of taxing the air we breathe...

That may well be true but speeding is still a crime.

I have observed in the past that the people who complain that they have been caught by a speed camera and that they are unfair are exactly the same people who think there should be zero tolerance on just about everything else.


Steve.

 

[Tazmaniandevil]

Speeding is illegal, which is why the majority of the driving population don't do it. However the point the OP is trying to make is perfectly valid, and by no means detracts from the dangers of driving too fast. Covert detection has little to do with safety. It is purely a revenue raising exercise. Our local force was also caught recently doing the same thing.
If the object of the exercise is increasing safety as they claim, stick up a Gatso or Truvelo or whatever rather than hide behind trees. Our local area has no fixed cameras. Why? Because they don't get to keep the revenue raised by such devices. This is not speculation BTW, it was stated in the Chief Constable's report.

If there is an issue with safety on a particular stretch of road there are many things which can be done to decrease the risk. Narrow the road and install traffic islands and chicanes to force the traffic to slalom. Speed bumps/cushions and rumble strips, although these upset nearby residents. How about the 'bus gate' type restrictions springing up all over the place? All of these will slow motorists down more effectively than a bored stiff police officer having to stand about in the p***ing rain for hours on end in order to meet targets set by "policing by game theory" local police boards.

I have observed in the past that the people who complain that they have been caught by a speed camera and that they are unfair are exactly the same people who think there should be zero tolerance on just about everything else.

I have been driving now for 28 years and have never been nicked for speeding. I firmly believe there should be zero tolerance on serious crime. I also believe there should be a nationwide strategy to target the abysmal driving standards in this country. I do not believe however than covert speed traps are the way to achieve this.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

A Dft study in 2006 concluded that exceeding the speed limit was a factor in 12 per cent of fatal road accidents, which means that 88% of road deaths aren't caused by speeding, yet by far the most effort is put into apprehending speeders.

Why? Simply because catching speeding motorists is the easiest way to generate revenue, short of taxing the air we breathe...

Do you have any numbers on non-fatal accidents? Would be interesting to see if it was still such a low proportion.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have been driving now for 28 years and have never been nicked for speeding. I firmly believe there should be zero tolerance on serious crime. I also believe there should be a nationwide strategy to target the abysmal driving standards in this country. I do not believe however than covert speed traps are the way to achieve this.

I have just done the maths and I am in a similar position. 25 years without any convictions at all.

I actually agree that speed cameras should not be covert but should be clearly visible as a deterrent. In fact, I thought the law stated that they had to be but I could be wrong.

The only problem I have is with the people who think it's o.k. to speed then moan about revenue collection etc. once they are caught. The revenue side of it makes no difference to the fact that they broke the law and must pay the fine.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

In fact, I thought the law stated that they had to be but I could be wrong.

I have just checked this out and apparently, it used to be the law but not any more.

I think that's a pity because I think they work very well as a deterrent where they are visible.

Locally, we have recently had a lot of interactive signs put up. They are solar powered and display your speed in LEDs as you approach them. In green up to the limit and red above the limit.

I think these work well as although drivers know that they are only an indicator, they still slow down as they don't want drivers behind them to realise they are speeding (my opinion, not backed up by fact).


Steve.

 

[Arkady]

*sigh* as I'd predicted... get off the bloody soapbox you boring sods!

Speeding isn't the subject of this thread - covert generation of revenue is.

Speeding isn't the prime cause of most accidents - bad driving is...

Instead of moaning about speeding drivers, more should be done to maintain the skills that drivers supposedly begin with... Mandatory re-tests after a period of time would reinforce or augment those skills and help prevent more accidents.

How many of you took advanced driving courses after you'd passed your tests? Precious bloody few I'll bet because we're all so damn arrogant in our belief that we're good drivers. No male driver in the UK would ever admit to being average or under-average in their driving skills, but some surely are - I've seen them!

Speeding doesn't cause half as many accidents as shyte driving, talking on your mobile, reading the paper (I saw it myself on the M4) or a road-map etc. etc.
Dumb, stupidity kills most people on the road and that's a fact.

 

[Steve Smith]

Mandatory re-tests after a period of time would reinforce or augment those skills and help prevent more accidents.

Agreed. Every five years sounds about right to me.



Steve.

 

[the undertaker]

*sigh* as I'd predicted... get off the bloody soapbox you boring sods!

Speeding isn't the subject of this thread - covert generation of revenue is.

Speeding isn't the prime cause of most accidents - bad driving is...

Instead of moaning about speeding drivers, more should be done to maintain the skills that drivers supposedly begin with... Mandatory re-tests after a period of time would reinforce or augment those skills and help prevent more accidents.

How many of you took advanced driving courses after you'd passed your tests? Precious bloody few I'll bet because we're all so damn arrogant in our belief that we're good drivers. No male driver in the UK would ever admit to being average or under-average in their driving skills, but some surely are - I've seen them!

Speeding doesn't cause half as many accidents as shyte driving, talking on your mobile, reading the paper (I saw it myself on the M4) or a road-map etc. etc.
Dumb, stupidity kills most people on the road and that's a fact.

WELL DONE...................... Well summed up.......

 

[Steep]

*sigh* as I'd predicted... get off the bloody soapbox you boring sods!

snip

Dumb, stupidity kills most people on the road and that's a fact.

Assuming I'm one of your boring sods on a soapbox, this soapbox would get no use if arrogant and/or self involved sods stopped complaining about speed traps as revenue collectors. The police are fully aware that some guy wearing a high vis vest pointing a hair dryer up the road will only stop speeders in the few hundred yards he can see for the half an hour he's standing there. Hide behind a hedge and catch the same driver 4 times and it's good night irene for his license and one less dangerous driver on the road.

Your last sentence makes sense but speeding is just as dumb and stupid as doing your makeup or holding a phone to your ear. I wonder will there be so many people complaining about these cameras that can catch mobile phone users if they ever go nationwide.

My point in these posts is that fast or slow 'you' are responsible for what you do and if you choose to break the law then accept that there will be a penalty.

 

[Arkady]

Assuming I'm one of your boring sods on a soapbox, this soapbox would get no use if arrogant and/or self involved sods stopped complaining about speed traps as revenue collectors. The police are fully aware that some guy wearing a high vis vest pointing a hair dryer up the road will only stop speeders in the few hundred yards he can see for the half an hour he's standing there. Hide behind a hedge and catch the same driver 4 times and it's good night irene for his license and one less dangerous driver on the road.

Your last sentence makes sense but speeding is just as dumb and stupid as doing your makeup or holding a phone to your ear. I wonder will there be so many people complaining about these cameras that can catch mobile phone users if they ever go nationwide.

My point in these posts is that fast or slow 'you' are responsible for what you do and if you choose to break the law then accept that there will be a penalty.

And your points are perfectly valid - my problem is the shrill sanctimony that occasionally tends to creep in...

It's this assumption that drivers who never speed are Better drivers...or the implication that they are somehow better human beings - when quite often the reverse is true.

Not all fast drivers are necessarily bad drivers...those who choose to exceed the speed limit when it's deemed safe to do so is their responsibility as you rightly said...the consequences are known and accepted.

If I encounter a completely empty road, utterly devoid of traffic and choose to go a bit fast - how is that endangering other road-users? The fact that it's illegal isn't under debate or even relevant to the original subject - covert generation of revenue...

 

[Steep]

My problem is being called boring and sanctimonious because I happen to hold an opposing view and am prepared to express and defend it.

Cobra has said that his point was wether or not it was ethical to hide in the shadows to catch speeders. I think it is since the only people going to be caught are speeders.

 

[Cobra]

Are you certain it was a speed-check camera and not a VRN Ident camera? They may have been on the lookout for a particular car...

99% sure that it was a speed camera I was the only car going in that
direction at that time and once I had "actually" seen it they had it trained on me, until I actually passed them,
which in its self I found a little strange
I thought they could "clock" you in a couple of seconds.
( if I had have been OTT they would have nicked me before I knew it)

...If it was a covert Speed-Camera you could argue the toss with them if you did recieve a ticket, as in the UK, cameras have to be 'advertised' - even the temporary vans are supposed to place temporary folding 'speed-camera' signs at least 300m from the camera position.

All the mobile speed cameras I have ever seen certainly in this area ( and that covers 2 counties and 2 police forces)
have NEVER had a warning sign placed away from the vehicle the vans have
signs painted on the front yet they are targeting you from the back
the back doors "sometimes" have a sign about a foot square but if the doors are open you can't see that either

Locally, we have recently had a lot of interactive signs put up. They are solar powered and display your speed in LEDs as you approach them. In green up to the limit and red above the limit.

Steve.

We have similar her too and you can bet your life once they come down
( they are usually in place for about a month) within the next month or two
there is a mobile speed camera
within a hundred or so yards of that point
exactly as happened in the area that I described in my OP

 

[Cobra]

Cobra has said that his point was wether or not it was ethical to hide in the shadows to catch speeders. I think it is since the only people going to be caught are speeders.

Point taken Steep, however as been said that they ( the police) as per their brief
are "supposed" to advertise there presence to slow traffic NOT to out and out, be there to catch motorists.

I am sure we must have a few police officers on here and it would be interesting to hear
their side of this

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

Do fixed cameras actually make a profit?

They need the initial cost, servicing, electricity year round etc and the fine I believe is only £30 if you pay within 14 days.

As for the mobile cameras - presumably they have similar inital outlay and servicing costs, but also have to factor in paying the wages of the person(s) sitting there in the van. Do they make a profit?