Central ticket office Dorset Police wrote:
With reference to the Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty issued to you, as no response has been received at this office,
Not true though. You've had quite a bit of communication with them.
Still plenty of time for them to lose the paperwork.
On the subject of speed cameras, you have no doubt seen the recent headlines proclaiming a 42% drop in accidents at speed camera sites.
If you dig out the report, buried deep in appendix H it notes that 60% of this reduction is due to natural fluctuations (i.e. they put the camera up after a blip in the figures), and a further 20% is due to the same fall in casualties as verey other road in the country. Leaving about an 8% reduction wich is possibly due tp cameras. Considering a rough estimate for the ammount of traffic which avoids a route after cameras are erected is about 10% the cameras are doing very badly. Mobile sites fared even worse than fixed.
Speed cameras are now meant to be correctly positioned and certainly correctly sign posted and painted.
The thing is with the Specs cameras that they are high up, therefore making them more difficult to see.
Normally when installed they are painted as they should be. Although in the link that follows the cameras in the picture are white, they are now black due to English Heritage. Amazing that they are allowed to get away with this. Transport For London T.F.L. wanted the cameras, and yet English Heritage dictated the colour had to be black.
Why couldn't T.F.L. check the instalation out properly before having the work done. Shouldn't things like this be subjected to some sort of planning approval by an independent body.
Also check out this story of incompetence by the authorities.
The tower bridge cameras are a controversy waiting to bite the local partnership in the arse.
They are enforcing a 20mph zone supposedly to protect the bridge structure from damage by heavy vehicles yet its mainly cars which are being prosecuted.
It's not even certain that a 20mph zone can be enforced at all, this still needs clarifying via the courts. As usual the CPS are reluctant to take such tricky cases all the way. And it's hard to find people willing to take on what could be a very lengthy and expensive fight through to the High Court.
I've been following this thread with interest for a while now, trying to keep an open mind ( I'm either lucky or careful enough to be points free so far ). It seems a bit prim and proper to say that if you don't speed then you won't get caught, but I feel that in a 30 limit that's how it is and should be. There is no disputing that around 10 people are killed every day on the road -the majority in built up areas.. and there are quite a few drivers who feel that their need to be somewhere at a certain time is more important than other people's safety, so until we decide to properly fund a Traffic police presence to deal with all motoring offences then cameras are here to stay.
I agree that anything that can be done to improve road safety should be considered but really speed cameras are virtually useless as they should only be catching strangers to their particular site.
We have about 4 in Southampton - great - I know where they are - and so does everyone else - and so what happens - everyone knows that they can ignore the limit everywhere else and as there is no real likelyhood of getting caught!
Cameras are a speeder's best friend! - If you want to speed learn to love them!
mpr1956 wrote: It seems a bit prim and proper to say that if you don't speed then you won't get caught, but I feel that in a 30 limit that's how it is and should be.
Read the "Talivan incompetence" page linked to above then come back and say "if you don't speed you won't get caught".
Thousands of people have been prosecuted for breaking a speed limit when either they were not or the limit simply did not exist.
The situation is compounded because the partnerships often refuse to hand over any evidence until the case goes to court.
But the real problem with cameras is that they do not save lives.
Hi Homer, I seem to recall a thing called 'Rules of disclosure' that applies to lawyers and all court cases as far as I know.
Basically it states that you have a right to know exactly what evidence the prosecution have (and intend to present in court) against you or your client BEFORE you attend court in order for you to prepare a full and proper defence, including any research that may be required, either for yourself, or your client...
I doubt that camera partnerships have an exemption from this law.. That being the case, if they produce evidence you have had no previous knowledge of, in or at the courthouse, you have every right to ask for a postponement should you wish to do so, in order to assess the implications of said new evidence, and to claim for any expenses so incurred..
James. (Nr M67 East of Manchester).
Dark Blue ZX 1.9D Auto 1994 'L' 5 dr (modified) Aura. 98K miles used daily. Ave mpg 40
Wedgewood Blue 75 CTD auto Connoissaur. 2002. 144k. used daily. ave mpg 40 ish.
James.UK wrote:Hi Homer, I seem to recall a thing called 'Rules of disclosure' that applies to lawyers and all court cases as far as I know.
Basically it states that you have a right to know exactly what evidence the prosecution have (and intend to present in court) against you or your client BEFORE you attend court in order for you to prepare a full and proper defence, including any research that may be required, either for yourself, or your client...
This is true but it only applies if you refuse the fixed penalty and take the case to court. Most people won't take it that far because of the bullying they will get from the partnerships, threats of £1000 fines and extra points etc.
Then we have all the cases which don't get to court for reasons we have yet to get an explanation of.
If a road (dual carrigeway) has two Gatso cameras then you would have thought, what with them not being too far apart, then they certainly have more than enough in the one area.
Yet, there were two traffic cops who did not think that was enough, and they were hiding in the bushes, and pointing a hand held speed gun between the cameras !
Frankly if a driver is concentrating on the traffic, and the fixed cameras you don't need plod doing crap like this.
While out driving after the above post, and on the approach to a junction where there is a traffic light camera a car had stopped. The light had turned red, and the car had come to a stop as you do.
The thing is though, this car was being followed by a 7.5 tonne builders truck. The truck suddenly came to a stop, and veered across into the lane next to him. You certainly wouldn't want to be the motorist in front of the truck let alone at the side of him, other than that it turned out the brake lights were not working. Luckily nobody had their vehicle damaged by this moron.
Although if the situation had been different he would have rear ended the car infront, taken out a car on his right, and somebody would have gone into the back of him.
Note this was a situation that didn't involve excess speed the danger was because one driver was reading the road correctly and concentrating as you should, while the truck driver wasn't concentrating properly. You could see the back of his head, looking around, but obviously not concentrating on the driving properly. Lights on no one home syndrome.
Also the traffic light camera was NOT painted on the back with a yellow panel as it should be.
So this links to the post before the update in that the plod at the side of the road were very distracting, and could have been better used elsewhere.
They could have also caused an accident by nervous motorists panic braking.
Also if you hide your body behind a bush stick your arms out, and ensure that people do not see the high visibility jacket properly if at all, then surely they are in contradiction of the rules that apply to fixed camera sites about proper visibility.
Today in the news they are reporting on an RAC press release about excessive distractions on the road. I.E too many signs etc, a case of information overload, and too much for the "average motorist" to concentrate on.
It seems there are actually too many average, and even below average motorists out there.
ACTIVE8 wrote:Today in the news they are reporting on an RAC press release about excessive distractions on the road. I.E too many signs etc, a case of information overload, and too much for the "average motorist" to concentrate on.
It seems there are actually too many average, and even below average motorists out there.
I know for sure that I don't have time to read all of the road signs at the side of the road. At times, especially when it is busy it would be extremely dangerous to try, you need to keep an eye on what is going on around you and read as many of the road signs as you need to.
When I'm on unfamiliar roads I often won't know what the speed limit is, that is usually because the limit changed at a road junction or something else that required my attention.
