Camera question

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 01 Jun 2005, 19:06

You're not wrong mate. I think it's a combination of people driving H-U-A, and also having their stereos cranked up to level 10.

howiedean · Post by **howiedean** » 01 Jun 2005, 23:00

If speed cameras are all about safety, lets see one outside every school then. I don't think they would make much money then though[:o)]

reblack68 · Post by **reblack68** » 02 Jun 2005, 00:52

I've pretty much confirmed it was a Gatso, both from my memory of what it looked like and by checking a speed camera database. It's strange because there was definitely nothing travelling away from it.

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 02 Jun 2005, 02:22

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by howiedean

If speed cameras are all about safety, lets see one outside every school then. I don't think they would make much money then though[:o)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Probably they wouldn't - with all the illegally parked 4 x 4s it's usually inpossible to drive past our local open prison at any time of the day in the week.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 02 Jun 2005, 02:29

I know of one speed camera that is outside a hospital...
I even knew where there are some where there had been accidents on the road, the road was "re-engineered" and the cameras went. I have said before that Northumbria Police take a sensible attitude towards speed limit enforcement but then there are the vans, and these seem to be out for nothing more than revenue generation, one of their favourite spots happens to be outside the chief constable's house, where there is a newish 30 zone.

drpau · Post by **drpau** » 02 Jun 2005, 04:48

Agree with you Kowalski on that one, how is it I manage to spot the Police car approaching and some chumps dont bother getting out of the way. It irritates me and Im not the copper! I think some people just never bother looking in their mirror.
I'd be all for putting camera's up outside schools, but some of the camera locations seem rubbish - i.e not a location where several accidents have happened in the past.
I think on the motorways the Police appreciate the fact that NOBODY drives at 70 and are will let them off with 80+., from what Ive seen anyway.

rbruce1314 · Post by **rbruce1314** » 02 Jun 2005, 19:36

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by drpau

Agree with you Kowalski on that one, how is it I manage to spot the Police car approaching and some chumps dont bother getting out of the way. It irritates me and Im not the copper! I think some people just never bother looking in their mirror.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
agreed: our local fire service has recently fitted bull horns to their vehicles to alert the drivers who fail to notice EITHER a big red thing behind them OR the blue lights OR the two-tones! Even then some of the dozy s*ds dont move!<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I think on the motorways the Police appreciate the fact that NOBODY drives at 70 and are will let them off with 80+., from what Ive seen anyway.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Same round here- do 80 passing a marked car in the inside lane and you just get smiled at.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 02 Jun 2005, 21:42

The fire engines up where I live have had air horns on their fire engines for years.
You can tell the difference by sound between ambulances, police cars and fire engines because the fire engines have the air horns going rather a lot.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 06 Jun 2005, 03:20

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by reblack68

I've pretty much confirmed it was a Gatso, both from my memory of what it looked like and by checking a speed camera database. It's strange because there was definitely nothing travelling away from it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Some dummy cameras have been known to get confused, flashing at vehicles under the speed limit. They also seem to have a problem with negative speeds.

leonardo · Post by **leonardo** » 07 Jun 2005, 17:58

I've been twice by cameras. First one was a on a hill on a bend. The flash almost caused me to crash the car.
The second time was a wide road and I will always maintain the speed limit was 40 there and the camera was on the otherside of the road as I was doing 36. I was lucky as Thames Valley Police were doing a anyone caught at 36 goes for a 3 hour speed awareness workshop which I found good, although the computer simulation said I was a good driver!

Oscar Too · Post by **Oscar Too** » 07 Jun 2005, 18:31

"Some dummy cameras have been known to get confused, "
is that why they're called "dummy cameras"? [:)]

reblack68 · Post by **reblack68** » 10 Jun 2005, 11:51

A driver who was caught doing 156mph while speaking on his mobile phone has been let off.[:(!][:(!][:(!] He should have served a prison sentence. I hope his lawyer happens to be in the way the next time he decides to drive like that. Boy racers in Fife have been getting their cars & bikes confiscated for much less. Boy racers who don't direct companies.
No prizes for guessing what kind of car he drives.
Link

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 12 Jun 2005, 13:46

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by reblack68

A driver who was caught doing 156mph while speaking on his mobile phone has been let off.[:(!][:(!][:(!]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Excuse me, I do hope you have proof of that otherwise you may have just committed libel!
The person in question was found not guilty. Which in case you need it explaining means there is no proof he did it.
Sorry but I hate this gulity until proven innocent then still guilty anyway attitude.[V]
How would you like to be accused of a crime, then have to defend yourself via a system weighted against you and then after finally proving your innocence everyone is still saying you are guilty?

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 12 Jun 2005, 16:51

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by reblack68

A driver who was caught doing 156mph while speaking on his mobile phone has been let off.[:(!][:(!][:(!] He should have served a prison sentence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Now lets be clear on this, what you should have said was
"A driver was caught doing 156mph while speaking on his mobile phone" and "He should have served a prison sentence.". The court found that Ronald Klos could not be identified as that person.
On the one hand, the Police are saying 156mph is bad but on the other PC Mark Milton was 3 mph faster and wasn't doing anything wrong.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 12 Jun 2005, 19:02

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

"A driver was caught doing 156mph while speaking on his mobile phone"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
On the other hand,
since the alledged offence was caught by an LTI20-20 (AKA dodgyscope). The same device which the BBC managed to get a speed reading of 6mph from an oak tree and something like 23mph from a pram and which has been ruled inadmissable as evidence in a number of US states (after getting 5mph from the court wall),
The only thing we can say with any accuracy is that someone was driving and holding a device resembling a mobile phone to their ear.[^]