[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)

[bob_a_builder]

The guys claim is that the internal delay between the 2 photos is incorrectly calibrated such that the camera overestimates over and above whatever the police think they have set it to.

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/def...p?storyId=9689

Quite how you (he) as an average user gets to measure that timeing delay without running up a large bill I don;t know

[hairy_mick]

I have a sat nav in my van that gives MPH speed i have been told it is more accurate than the speedo when i am doing 30mph the nav says 26mph so my speedo is under if its the other way then that frightning.
My point is if they give you 10% then you are well over the limit if caught.

[AndrewJ]

I know, I once drove a big america v8 car, and keeping the thing to 30mph...was errm interesting.

[zoombini]

The 10% rule was abolished the other year.

Just because all cameras in the uk "should" be set at a certain level, does not mean that they all are. These settings etc are guidelines & each authority do whatever they please.

And they do do whatever they please.
Like putting them where they want to make money instead of in accident blackspots etc.

It is obviously apparent that they are not all set at the same level given the speeds that some people get fined at.

[bopdude]

Originally Posted by zoombini

And they do do whatever they please.
Like putting them where they want to make money instead of in accident blackspots etc.

That would be the safety camera and not the speed trap camera then

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by bopdude

That would be the safety camera and not the speed trap camera then

There are no "speed trap cameras" they are now all called "Safety Cameras" which for many is a contradiction in terms, which is what Zoombini was alluding to.

If they were true "safety cameras" they would be at accident black spots and not on a nice long straight bit of dual carriageway where the speed limit has been set at a low tarriff purely for the financial gain of the self financing/self regulating "safety camera partnership.

A recent study showed that cameras don't even work at blackspots either and the best way to reduce accidents at dangerous bends, junctions etc is by the use of "active signing". You've probably seen them popping up at bad bends etc. These are signs that light up as you approach them. They immediately grap your attention and you react to them.

Because the average motorists concentration and senses have been numbed by the amount of "sign pollution" on our roads they don't register some of the "normal" signs.

These new signs are a great idea and really do save lives, unfortunately for the police however they do not raise cash.

[AndrewJ]

Around my area of the woods we have a dual carriageway which has a "safety camera" on it, everyone flies up road, then procedes to pile on brakes for the camera as speed limit is 40mph, and that has caused more accidents then the frigging camera avoids, especially for people in heavy vehicles who just cannot stop.

[bopdude]

Originally Posted by Pierre

There are no "speed trap cameras" they are now all called "Safety Cameras" which for many is a contradiction in terms, which is what Zoombini was alluding to.

Yeah mate, hence the sarcasm after my sentence

Originally Posted by bopdude

That would be the safety camera and not the speed trap camera then

[zoombini]

This looks like developing into another bash at cameras thread.. lol

Ah what the heck, let's all go bash a camera, speed trap or safety... the same cruddy ones lol

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zoombini

The 10% rule was abolished the other year.

South Wales Police aren't aware of this.....

[me283]

Originally Posted by Paul M

He might have done better if he had identified himself as 'possibly' being the driver, and then ignoring the "conditional offers" they send out. In this case the police often just forget about it as it's too much trouble to proceed with a court case.

I was in court today and found guilty of "Failing To Provide". The Fixed Penalty people ignored my requests to see the picture, and I could prove it wasn't me driving, so how come thisresult? The magistrates said I hadn't "made sufficient efforts to identify the driver". In fact I asked the possible suspects, who all denied it. What more could I do?

It just furthers my belief that these cameras are more about money-making, and less about road safety. I could tell you dozens of experiences to back this up.
__________________

Originally Posted by Nidge

I asked a mate of mine who's a traffic cop, he said the cameras are set at 38MPH in a 30 and 48 in a 40 and so on, the settings are to give the public some leway because your speedo is not a true reading, I think he said it's 10% out on the true road speed.

I was told that the national guideline is for the camera to be set at speed limit + 10% + 2mph eg 30mph limit has cameras at 35mph, 40 mph limit has cameras at 46mph. However, in the Thames Valley it's 10% plus 3mph over the limit.

[me283]

Here's a funny tale... I was found guilty of "Failing To Provide Information" today, fined and given penalty points. The magistrates decided I hadn't made "sufficient efforts" to identify the driver of the vehicle concerned. This in spite of the Fixed Penalty people ignoring my requests to see the GATSO photo to help identify the driver. It seems I should have chased them up when they didn't respond.

So good people, next time you reply to the Notice of Intended Prosecution, remember to keep calling the Fixed Penalty Support Unit until you receive a written reply...

What a wonderful justice system we have!

[Chimaera]

I feel really sorry for you, but I have to ask - what has that got to do with the Road Traffic Act?

[me283]

Because the magistrates were interpreting and enforcing said act. But I wonder just how many people can point to an occasion when they didn't know exactly who was driving their car? It could be that a man and wife both drive the car (famous case involving the Hamiltons springs to mind). If they can't remember who was driving at a particular time, the registered keeper of the car could be fined and punished... is that really fair?

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Chimaera

I feel really sorry for you, but I have to ask - what has that got to do with the Road Traffic Act?

because "failing to provide information" is a section of the Road Traffic act 1988 & 1991.