Dove32 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Hey all, Just went past a mobile speed van as pointless as they are. Still i wasnt sure what speed i was doing but im pretty sure i was over the speed limit. The question i have is the back of the van was like this and wondered if the back doors need to be open before it can get people? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon+Kat Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I think some need the back door open and some have an obvious dark glass panel. So you maybe in luck. I went past one on my bike once with the git aiming his equipment out the back door (bikes dont have a front plate ), as i came past him, he pulled the camera out of the back door and threw the side door open and aimed at my rear numberplate gutted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dove32 Posted March 18, 2011 Author Share Posted March 18, 2011 I think some need the back door open and some have an obvious dark glass panel. So you maybe in luck. I went past one on my bike once with the git aiming his equipment out the back door (bikes dont have a front plate ), as i came past him, he pulled the camera out of the back door and threw the side door open and aimed at my rear numberplate gutted! thats one dedicated speed camera bloke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evest Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 as pointless as they are. Some food for thought... UK Road Stats for 2009 2,222 dead 24,690 seriously injured 195, 234 slightly injured Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of small accidents that keep our insurance high... People berate the police and say "they should be out catching real criminals..." - real criminals don't kill and injure as many people as the above... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rothers2901 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 My knowledge of the safety partnership vehicle is that some have darkened glass in the rear doors which is clearly noticable. So if the picture is a true reflection of what you passed then you may be OK. But some vans do have the viewing point for the camera on the side pannel of the the van and the rear signs are for driver awareness. You may be lucky you may not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob63 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I think some need the back door open and some have an obvious dark glass panel. So you maybe in luck. I went past one on my bike once with the git aiming his equipment out the back door (bikes dont have a front plate ), as i came past him, he pulled the camera out of the back door and threw the side door open and aimed at my rear numberplate gutted! I think you'll find that the latest generation have a camera mounted on the side of the van, like a very small dome...it operates through 360 degrees and doesn't miss a damn thing, forwards, backwards etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulletMagnet Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Just watch your speed and be more observant in the future. Just cos you have a sports car don't mean you have to drive "sporty" all the time. We ain't garyboys you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Some use the camera through the side doors instead. I got done last year, id just driven about 80 miles, passed no end of cameras and even did 15miles on a road which had SPECS cameras, all without any problems, then as I was overtaking a lorry on a duel carriage way, i pulled back in and got flashed by a camera van which was parked on the side of the road. I was doing 81 in a 70. The funny thing was that there was a massive long queue of cars behind me waiting for me to pull in so they could overtake me. I was gutted, as id had the cruise control set at 70mph for nearly all my journey as im paranoid about speeding and id only accelerated slightly to get by the lorry. Got 3 points and 60quid fine, and it increased my insurance premium by about 10%. If they have got you, you`ll get a letter through within 2 weeks. My local police force obviously had nothing better to do as the letter arrived litterally the next day on my door mat!. I actually wrote to them and asked if I could do the speed awareness course instead, as a few years back my brother got rammed off the road by a dangerous hit and run driver - writing his car off completely. That driver when the police caught up with him was allowed to go on a speed awareness course instead of having points. But the police replied that my "offense" didnt qualify for the speed awareness course. Clearly it wasnt regarded as dangerous enough. Maybe if id actually rammed the police van then that would be classed as "dangerous" enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walbertonio Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The issue of speeding here aside, I'd like to touch on cameras however. I just can't see what safety they promote, as they have bred the habit of staring at ones speedo, taking your eyes from the road. I'd rather see all the money invested in these camera projects put into something more akin to a compulsory course for new drivers and people involved in an accident along the theme of an advanced awareness/anticipation simulation. Cameras don't teach anything but clock watching, but forcing drivers to face up to their hopeless awareness/anticipation may save a lot more lives in future. imo anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I went past one on my bike once with the git aiming his equipment out the back door (bikes dont have a front plate ), as i came past him, he pulled the camera out of the back door and threw the side door open and aimed at my rear numberplate gutted! Should have slowed down when you had the chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The G Man Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Some fair points here, the accident figures above make sobering reading. Though they are accidents and apart from the calous minority, no one sets out to cause carnage or break the law. I was, quite rightly, prosecuted for speeding on a motorway back in 1996, 99.36mph, it was on a Sunday, weather was dry and sunny, traffic was very light. I was fined £600 and had 3points awarded. I was guilty and had no defence. Two weeks later, a police car in Aberdeen, mounted a pavement, while doing excessive speed on a non emergency call, two's and blues blazing, and KILLED two pensioners. The policeman responsible was FINED £300 and had 6 points awarded to him. He kept his job. My point is that, while there is a need for policing the roads with regards speeding etc., it should be carried out in a fair manner. I'll leave it for you to decide if the policeman and myself were treated fairly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evest Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Some fair points here, the accident figures above make sobering reading. Though they are accidents and apart from the calous minority, no one sets out to cause carnage or break the law. The Police and CPS have sometimes got it wrong with regards to punishments for driving offences of different severity - that's down to human error. I agree nobody sets out to cause an accident, but people do set out to deliberatly speed and break the law. It's viewed as not-really-a-crime that you can 'get away with'. I too have been caught speeding in the past when I was younger, and been on the awareness course - which did make me change my attitude. Before that I DID set out to break the law, by intentionally speeding. The awareness courses are designed for those people who may have accidentally crept above the speed limit, within a certain tolerance - plus you can usually get away with a couple of mph grace over the limit. We were told that speed cameras are positioned in order to make you slow down and keep slow as you enter built up areas, towards the bottom of hills where you may have picked up speed a bit, etc... They are no different from a bobby being stood there with a speed gun - but clearly resources are thin, so these things theoretically save money by reducing manpower assigned to the task of policing the roads. All to often people speed, slam on the brakes in the speed camera catchment area, then speed back up (usually causing a phantom traffic jam in the process), and when they finally get caught, they start moaning about the police having nowt better to do, etc... I believe it is a driver's responsibility to monitor and be aware of their speed - this doesn't have to mean constant clock watching, but just a better overall awareness of how fast you are going. I know it sounds a bit like I'm preaching - but really if people drove in accordnace with the speed limits, we wouldn't actually need speed cameras - and most major roads and motorway would work a whole lot better. Plus - they would not get caught in the first place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 as pointless as they are. Some food for thought... UK Road Stats for 2009 2,222 dead 24,690 seriously injured 195, 234 slightly injured U.K road deaths in 1966 (the year I started driving) were 7,985 and they have fallen steadily since then. In 1990, when speed cameras were introduced there were 5,217 fatalities. There have obviously been many changes in the law since 1966, Seat Belts, Crash helmets, Drink driving laws, etc, but no major legislation since 1990, so you can draw your own conclusions as to why the death rates have more than halved in the last 20 years. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 They are no different from a bobby being stood there with a speed gun Yes they are. They do not have that human element discretion. A police officer can choose how to deal with someone doing 35 in a 30 at 5am in the morning when there is nothing more than a blackbird sharing the road, and they can choose how to deal with that same person doing 35 in a 30 when the primary school on that road has just emptied for the afternoon. A camera deals with those two possibilities in exactly the same manner. and most major roads and motorway would work a whole lot better. Plus - they would not get caught in the first place! No, they wouldn't. Motorways are clogged becasue A. Trucks continue to overtake each other for miles on end and B. People do not keep left. People that drive at 65 in the centre lane cause a massive risk to many other road users and themselves, much more than someone doing 80 in the fast lane on a quiet Sunday. But again, which one does the camera prosecute? The reason there are no accuarte published figures from the office of national statistics on cameras, driving offences and death rates since 2002, is beacuase they know full well they can't be justified. For the record, I have no points and never been prosecuted or warned for speeding. I simply abhore the way that motorists in general (and not just those who speed) are being used as nothing more than a massive cash cow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexx Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 as pointless as they are. Some food for thought... UK Road Stats for 2009 2,222 dead 24,690 seriously injured 195, 234 slightly injured Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of small accidents that keep our insurance high... People berate the police and say "they should be out catching real criminals..." - real criminals don't kill and injure as many people as the above... And how many of those are caused by speeding? Not all of them thats for sure. Some will be caused by people texting, applying lipstick, poorly maintained vehicles, poor situational awareness, weather.......you get what I mean. Statistics can be used to prove anything you want. You just have to pose the question in a way that suits. Please dont just throw numbers at us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evest Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 They are no different from a bobby being stood there with a speed gun Yes they are. They do not have that human element discretion. A police officer can choose how to deal with someone doing 35 in a 30 at 5am in the morning when there is nothing more than a blackbird sharing the road, and they can choose how to deal with that same person doing 35 in a 30 when the primary school on that road has just emptied for the afternoon. A camera deals with those two possibilities in exactly the same manner. I completey accept your point - my meaning was more to do with how drivers react when they see the camera/bobby - they are the same thing in terms of a deterrent and most major roads and motorway would work a whole lot better. Plus - they would not get caught in the first place! No, they wouldn't. Motorways are clogged becasue A. Trucks continue to overtake each other for miles on end and B. People do not keep left. People that drive at 65 in the centre lane cause a massive risk to many other road users and themselves, much more than someone doing 80 in the fast lane on a quiet Sunday. But again, which one does the camera prosecute? I still maintain that if people drove at the correct speeds, particulary on the motorway, they would work better. As for people's other poor driving habits, yes I agree with your point The reason there are no accuarte published figures from the office of national statistics on cameras, driving offences and death rates since 2002, is beacuase they know full well they can't be justified. For the record, I have no points and never been prosecuted or warned for speeding. I simply abhore the way that motorists in general (and not just those who speed) are being used as nothing more than a massive cash cow. I think many of us do. But every individual is in control of whether or not to face a speeding fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 There have obviously been many changes in the law since 1966, Seat Belts, Crash helmets, Drink driving laws, etc, but no major legislation since 1990, so you can draw your own conclusions as to why the death rates have more than halved in the last 20 years. Pete One major point overlooked in the statistics of road deaths / camera introduction point is the advancement in the vehicles on the roads, both in terms of occupant safety and pedestrian impact safety. We have curtain airbags, bonnets which pop up to try and cushion pedestrian impacts etc etc... Thousands of advancements. NCAP ratings for occupant and pedestrian safety ratings have mor than doubled in some cases for comparable cars over the last 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 And how many of those are caused by speeding? Not all of them thats for sure. Ah but not in the polices eyes. Theres a road near me which has a 50mph speed limit on it, its a very long straight bit of road with 1 bend on it. There have been several accident on there, one of the last ones was when some guy decided to overtake a car on the only bend on the road, whilst a lorry was coming the other direction. Needless to say he crashed his car. A local news paper got a speed camera and sat there for a day recording speeds and said that 80% of all cars on that road were speeding. Clearly 80% of cars on that road were not crashing or having accidents, so its OBVIOUS that speed had nothing to do with it, its a case of DANGEROUS DRIVING. Any idiot can keep within the speed limit and still drive dangerously or drunk or with no insurance / tax / mot or license. So what did the police do? Put more patrol cars on the road to catch the dangerous drivers? Nope.. they invested £400k in SPECS speed cameras for the road. Where is the logic in that? Similarly with the a14 in Cambridge... average speed from Huntington to Cambridge (15miles) is around 20mph (in a 70mph limit). There are no end of accidents on the road and broken down vehicles. Sometimes it can take 2hours to do the 15miles. What was the answer, bearing in mind the average speed is never anywhere near the actual speed limit? Yep, SPECS speed cameras all installed. What difference has that made? Absolutely none. Average speed is still around 20mph, still broken down lorries and numerous accidents. Only people it will actually catch are those motorists who speed late at night or in the early hours of the morning when theres no traffic on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexx Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Similarly with the a14 in Cambridge... average speed from Huntington to Cambridge (15miles) is around 20mph (in a 70mph limit). There are no end of accidents on the road and broken down vehicles. Sometimes it can take 2hours to do the 15miles. What was the answer, bearing in mind the average speed is never anywhere near the actual speed limit? Yep, SPECS speed cameras all installed. What difference has that made? Absolutely none. Average speed is still around 20mph, still broken down lorries and numerous accidents. Only people it will actually catch are those motorists who speed late at night or in the early hours of the morning when theres no traffic on the road. I drive that road every fortnight going to and from work at Tilbury. I feel your frustration! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 the invention and now wide spread use of things like ABS and stability control devices have probably saved alot of lives, as its allowed more control in a skid, and reduced the chances of skidding and the safe breaking distance in which you can stop. better chassis designs and a better understanding in the science of impacts has lead to the force of an impact being channeled round a driver to keep the cabin area safe. as for camera's i'm sorry but its not like they don't advertise where they arte putting them and most good satnavs have all the hot spots marked and regualrly updated. yes accidents happen and you may go over; but if your aware of your surroundings this shouldn't be an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evest Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Less speed = higher survivability in the event of an accident. All those 80% might not cause the accident - but they will have a lower chance of survival when they encounter said guy coming round the corner on the wrong side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Less speed = higher survivability in the event of an accident. All those 80% might not cause the accident - but they will have a lower chance of survival when they encounter said guy coming round the corner on the wrong side. but why should i have to go slower becuas some numpty shouldn't be incontrol of a vehicle? and i don't mean going faster than 70, there is a big push at the moment to reduce the 70 in places to 50, some 30's are now 20's etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Ill take a 40mph crash in a 2011 ford focus over a 30mph crash in a 1992 ford escort. There is way to much emphasis put on speed, but of course its the only one that people can be fined for. Just by driving down the street at legal speeds in a 1990 escort you pose more danger to a pedestrian than a 2011 Focus doing the same legal speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evest Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 but why should i have to go slower becuas some numpty shouldn't be incontrol of a vehicle? and i don't mean going faster than 70, there is a big push at the moment to reduce the 70 in places to 50, some 30's are now 20's etc. I'm not defending the numpties - far from it. But unfortunately, because there doesn't appear to be anything better than a very basic test to define who should and shouldn't be allowed on the roads - the powers that be have to do something to stop them killing everyone! The right to drive a car appears to be universal, and therin lies a fundamental flaw... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I would see a fundamental flaw is policing based on the one (easy) aspect that they can monitor (speed). A responsible driver at 35 in a 30 is penalised, where a drunk going past a camera at 30 would get away with it. If every driver stuck to the speed limits, are we suggesting that we will reduce deaths to zero? I dont think so. But the statistics that are being put out are suggesting thats the case. If every car was electronically limited to 70, would we se an end to all deaths on the motorway for example? If the answer is no, then cameras are not the way to police the roads imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.