Reply to: Council Ends Speed Camera Funding

[The Lone Gunman]

This seems like both...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-exercise.html

"Schofield was testing an in-car speed recording device "

to catch all those dangerous speeders and give them a safety lecture perhaps?!

That story is very local to me. I see one of the coppers about town occasionally.
That road is notorious. It is also a favourite spot for plod to stop bikers for speeding. A mate got a ticket and a lecture on how dangerous that particular road is. This begs the question why they were using it for high speed driving tests. Why they couldn't test that equipment at Oulton park or similar is beyond me.

[edit]What is more http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/morecamb...ing.4519171.jp he got off.

[Bagpuss]

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

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

This seems like both...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-exercise.html

"Schofield was testing an in-car speed recording device "

to catch all those dangerous speeders and give them a safety lecture perhaps?!

[stingman123]

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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)

[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?

[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]

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.

[BrilloPad]

Your gf walks the kids to school? Is that allowed? Expect a visit from social services asking why you don't have an urban assault vehicle, if you expect to do parenting.

Does this explain why we are one of the few who do - despite living one of the furthest from the school?

[Alf W]

Well done Swindon!

On the 'urban assault vehicle' front. A few weeks ago the wife was taking our son to school in her nice big 4WD and some idiot rammed into the back of her in a VW Polo. Result? One completely trashed Polo and a new bumper for her car. You see, completely vindicated. You can't be too careful when it comes to kids and safety.

[HeliCraig]

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.