Council Ends Speed Camera Funding

[BrilloPad]

Good on Swindon.

I have to say, as someone who was busted by plods for speeding (2AM in the morning on the M6. Me + 3 lorries on video!)... that while they can spot bad driving in ways that the cameras cant unfortunately we have a police force filled with jobsworths. And not very bright ones at that.

I mean, who was I hurting?? And how did I manage to make my Ford Focus go 6 miles an hour faster than Ford can? Idiots.

Exactly - its the lack of discretion that is the issue. Doing 71 on a motorway at rush hour in torrential rain is bad. On an open motorway in clear conditions 100 is fine.

[HeliCraig]

Exactly - its the lack of discretion that is the issue. Doing 71 on a motorway at rush hour in torrential rain is bad. On an open motorway in clear conditions 100 is fine.

What about 114 in a car which only does 108, on the M6 at 2AM ???

Sneaky mother flockers were behind me when I got on the motorway. Video had me and a couple of heavies on it. I grovelled, apologised, massaged their EGO's and was generally polite. Still got a summons 5months and 3 weeks later (they have 6 months).

Got a good solicitor and escaped a ban: 6 points, £400 fine.

[BrilloPad]

What about 114 in a car which only does 108, on the M6 at 2AM ???

Sneaky mother flockers were behind me when I got on the motorway. Video had me and a couple of heavies on it. I grovelled, apologised, massaged their EGO's and was generally polite. Still got a summons 5months and 3 weeks later (they have 6 months).

Got a good solicitor and escaped a ban: 6 points, £400 fine.

You were very unlucky - they usually tell you on the spot. I guess they were short on their stats?

A friend in a similar position was told " could not see how fast you were going - lets call it 100". He thought bans usually at over 100. Turns out it was 100 or more.....

I believe now a few have been banned at 90-99 to set an example?

[TheBigYinJames]

I believe now a few have been banned at 90-99 to set an example?

I believe the actual limit is 95 for a ban, but this is discretionary.

TBYJ (6 points at 101 in 2004)

[HeliCraig]

You were very unlucky - they usually tell you on the spot. I guess they were short on their stats?

A bit of both. Unlucky to get done, lucky to not get banned. I did help that a family friend is a senior Rozza in the same force with a passionate dislike for the plod involved. He wrote a glowing character reference, on force headed paper, to give to the magistrates. And a letter from ClientCo at the time.

Oh, that and I turned up in a suit, with a solicitor and was polite. This was in Nuneaton. The blokes before and after me where in shell suits and effing and jeffing about the inconvenience of it all. Turns out they had both been fighting at the weekend (separately). One of them was "inconvenienced" for considerably more than just that morning!

I believe the actual limit is 95 for a ban, but this is discretionary.

TBYJ (6 points at 101 in 2004)

When I was shown the guidelines by my solicitor it was >=100, but as they are only guidelines they are to some extent discretionary - you have to show the magistrates a reason to deviate from them. I did.

The points are gone now!

[TheBigYinJames]

When I was shown the guidelines by my solicitor it was >=100, but as they are only guidelines they are to some extent discretionary - you have to show the magistrates a reason to deviate from them. I did.

I meant that 95 was the limit after which the police offer who stopped you cannot offer you a conditional offer (just the points and fine). Anything over 95 they have to send you to court.

What happens when you get there is up to the magistrates. I was a totter (already had 6 points) so the 6 points they gave me was an automatic ban, but they let me off after i said I needed to drive to go to work. So I had 12 points on my license for 3 years

All gone now

[gingerjedi]

Speed camera stats are always skewed as the trigger for having one installed is a peak in road accidents in a given area, obviously from a ‘peak’ accidents will fall and the government use this as ‘proof’ that the cameras work regardless of the fact that they would have fallen anyway.

I’m for anything that works to prevent death on the roads, at least Swindon council have the balls to try and tackle the real problem and not hide behind bogus figure to justify a money tree.

[TykeMerc]

Speed camera stats are always skewed as the trigger for having one installed is a peak in road accidents in a given area, obviously from a ‘peak’ accidents will fall and the government use this as ‘proof’ that the cameras work regardless of the fact that they would have fallen anyway.

I’m for anything that works to prevent death on the roads, at least Swindon council have the balls to try and tackle the real problem and not hide behind bogus figure to justify a money tree.

I believe that the "accidents" that they can use to justify siting a speed camera include anything where an injury has occurred like a cyclist falling off their pushbike and breaking a finger or an old dear tripping over a paving slab and breaking a hip in a fall, no vehicle has to actually be involved. Another possibly urban myth is one incident that hurts 10 people is counted as 10 seperate incidents.

I've seen too many speed cameras on spots of perfectly safe road where the limits are arguably a bit low to believe that they're all there purely to ensure safety rather than to increase revenue.

[PRC1964]

They're expensive buggers to run by the looks of it. Swindon have been paying £320,000 a year for just six of them, or around £2 per citizen of the town.

[stingman123]

It's not speeding that kills, it's bad driving.

They are both totally different issues, but not in the police manual.