Gatso Roadside Cameras

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

According to this site:

http://www.radardetectors.co.uk/camera_locations_south_yorkshire.htm

The A629 has differing speed limits being 30mph & 40mph.

How can you distinguish which part of this road he was on, going from the information given?

He said the only signs he saw were 40mph signs, the only indication of a change of speed limit was supposed to be the spacing of lamp posts, which suggests to me that it wasn't in a residential area. Just looking at google maps it also appears that there are non residential sections of the road, so perfectly plausible that a mistake was made, and nothing to suggest that he is lying or should not be believed.

As already indicated, I am familiar with the road. The New Wortley Road is a dual carriageway 40 mph stretch which, at the roundabout junction with the A6109 Wilton Gdns, narrows to a single carriageway road. There is a 30mph sign just after the roundabout, clearly visable on the apex of a gentle left hand bend and right in a drivers eye-line. This is suplemented by a speed camera sign at the bus stop near the junction with Bradgate Lane and a further 30mph sign and speed camera sign opposite Bradgate Motors. The Gatso camera is then clearly visible at the top of the hill just before the petrol station. The road continues, past pubs, shops, a school and more camera/30 mph speed limit signs until opening up into a well posted 40mph limit. The 40 stays in place until the other side of the M1 junction. A driver would have to pass 2 clearly visible speed limit signs before reaching the camera.

liam8282 wrote: »

You said drivers don't "get done" for doing 33mph and wanted proof, somebody has given it to you.

Proof? Just the word of a man who can't even see a standard, high visibility speed limit sign, twice? Is that really YOUR proof?

liam8282

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

As already indicated, I am familiar with the road. The New Wortley Road is a dual carriageway 40 mph stretch which, at the roundabout junction with the A6109 Wilton Gdns, narrows to a single carriageway road. There is a 30mph sign just after the roundabout, clearly visable on the apex of a gentle left hand bend and right in a drivers eye-line. This is suplemented by a speed camera sign at the bus stop near the junction with Bradgate Lane and a further 30mph sign and speed camera sign opposite Bradgate Motors. The Gatso camera is then clearly visible at the top of the hill just before the petrol station. The road continues, past pubs, shops, a school and more camera/30 mph speed limit signs until opening up into a well posted 40mph limit. The 40 stays in place until the other side of the M1 junction. A driver would have to pass 2 clearly visible speed limit signs before reaching the camera.

So you expect other people to take your word on that?

What about if the person was driving in the opposite direction, you have only detailed the road one way.

Also the article is from 2007, could the improved signage be in response to this case I wonder?

Yet another point, the A629 speeding offence is totally separate to the offence we are talking about, the 33mph offence was in Wales.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Proof? Just the word of a man who can't even see a standard, high visibility speed limit sign, twice? Is that really YOUR proof?

As I say, why not accept that persons word, there is no reason not to?

If not, why take your word on what you have said about the road?

We already have the facts according to the ACPO guidelines you posted, and they say any offence above the speed limit is down to the officers discretion. Everything else is irrelevant really.

This is just getting stupid now.

liam8282

Same story, different paper, much better wording IMO.

Should remove any doubts you have over taking the man at his word.

It says he only had to do the drivers awareness course for the first offence (Wales), but was going to court to argue his case for the second offence (Rotherham).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-460536/The-driver-faces-60-speeding-fine--failing-measure-gaps-lampposts.html

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

So you expect other people to take your word on that?

Well, it's a public road so anyone can see for themselves.

liam8282 wrote: »

What about if the person was driving in the opposite direction, you have only detailed the road one way.

Because I bothered to look into it. In the Daily Mail article... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-460536/The-driver-faces-60-speeding-fine--failing-measure-gaps-lampposts.html .... Complete with sorrowful picure of persecuted motorist, he clearly states he was "driving his wife Susan, 37, daughter Millie, 20 months, and his mother-in-law home from a shopping trip in his Jaguar when he fell foul of a speed camera on the single- carriageway A629 near Rotherham town centre." So, unless his geography is as bad as his eyesight, he would have no reason to be heading both from AND towards Rotherham at the same time.

liam8282 wrote: »

Yet another point, the A629 speeding offence is totally separate to the offence we are talking about, the 33mph offence was in Wales.

As I say, why not accept that persons word, there is no reason not to?

If not, why take your word on what you have said about the road?

Accept that persons word? 2 national papers have jumped on this as a "motorist persecution" story, complete with pictures and various quotes from various people. Don't you think they would have had an absolute field day if he had been done for 33 instead of 40? If so, where is the picture of the sorrowful motorist caught doing 33? In north Wales? Home of the "Traffic Taliban"? The CPO they ALL hate, Richard Brunstrom? It would have been front page news!

casper_g

liam8282 wrote: »

Same story, different paper, much better wording IMO.

Should remove any doubts you have over taking the man at his word.

It says he only had to do the drivers awareness course for the first offence (Wales), but was going to court to argue his case for the second offence (Rotherham).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-460536/The-driver-faces-60-speeding-fine--failing-measure-gaps-lampposts.html

A bit OT here, but the story as reported is a bit confusing. The guy claims there were NO 30 mph signs and he was supposed to know the limit PURELY from the distance between lamp posts. However, the DoT spokesperson is quoted as saying:

"Essentially where you pass from an area where there is a defined speed limit to a 30mph limit there should be a sign at the start of the restricted area.

"After that there tend not to be repeater signs but a motorist is able to judge whether it is 30 mph or not by looking at the distance between the lampposts."

This quote is presented as if it were an admission that the law is as harsh as the paper claims, but actually the DoT says there should be a sign at the start of the 30 limit, and the closely-spaced lamp posts merely imply there is no need for repeater signs.

Wee_Willy_Harris

casper_g wrote: »

A bit OT here, but the story as reported is a bit confusing. The guy claims there were NO 30 mph signs and he was supposed to know the limit PURELY from the distance between lamp posts. However, the DoT spokesperson is quoted as saying:

"Essentially where you pass from an area where there is a defined speed limit to a 30mph limit there should be a sign at the start of the restricted area.

"After that there tend not to be repeater signs but a motorist is able to judge whether it is 30 mph or not by looking at the distance between the lampposts."

This quote is presented as if it were an admission that the law is as harsh as the paper claims, but actually the DoT says there should be a sign at the start of the 30 limit, and the closely-spaced lamp posts merely imply there is no need for repeater signs.

Obviously, he is just a spokesman, probably speaking on the phone to the reporter and not in a position to be familiar with the individual road or individual case the reporter is enquiring about. He would, therefor, only be able to speak in general terms.

liam8282

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, it's a public road so anyone can see for themselves.

I looked at it on google maps and there are sections that are non residential, I also gave you links to a website that shows the speed limits on the road differ between 30mph and 40mph

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Because I bothered to look into it. In the Daily Mail article... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-460536/The-driver-faces-60-speeding-fine--failing-measure-gaps-lampposts.html .... Complete with sorrowful picure of persecuted motorist, he clearly states he was "driving his wife Susan, 37, daughter Millie, 20 months, and his mother-in-law home from a shopping trip in his Jaguar when he fell foul of a speed camera on the single- carriageway A629 near Rotherham town centre." So, unless his geography is as bad as his eyesight, he would have no reason to be heading both from AND towards Rotherham at the same time.

Does it say where he was shopping, where he was travelling to or from? I don't think so.

It could be anywhere on the entire road, travelling in either direction, towards the town centre or away from it.

You also do not know when certain signs have been erected, as I mentioned before, they may have been erected in direct response to this case getting to court.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Accept that persons word? 2 national papers have jumped on this as a "motorist persecution" story, complete with pictures and various quotes from various people. Don't you think they would have had an absolute field day if he had been done for 33 instead of 40? If so, where is the picture of the sorrowful motorist caught doing 33? In north Wales? Home of the "Traffic Taliban"? The CPO they ALL hate, Richard Brunstrom? It would have been front page news!

The article says he was already done for the 33mph offence in Wales and dealt with by the driver awareness course.

As I pointed out before, the police do not count a FPN or a drivers awareness course as a prosecution. They are all different punishments in their own right.

A prosecution is taking the offence to it's highest level, risking the maximum penalties. Taking it all the way to court. The reason you never hear of them getting to court, is because people don't take that risk, they accept the lower penalties at the first opportunity.

The reason the article is not concerned with the 33mph offence, is because it is talking about drivers knowing that a 30mph zone is determined between the distance between lampposts, rather than way of a sign. Which is a story in it's own right.

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

I looked at it on google maps and there are sections that are non residential, I also gave you links to a website that shows the speed limits on the road differ between 30mph and 40mph

Does it say where he was shopping, where he was travelling to or from? I don't think so.

It could be anywhere on the entire road, travelling in either direction, towards the town centre or away from it.

The article CLEARLY indicates that he was returning HOME, which is EAST of Rotherham. However, had he been travelling in the opposite direction, he would have passed the same number of 30mph signs AND a school. This is the only 30mph stretch of this road betwen Rotherham town centre and the M1. Perhaps, as you seem to think I have got the location wrong, you could indicate where else on this road you think he was. From the evidence provided, I know where he was.

Wee_Willy_Harris

liam8282 wrote: »

The article says he was already done for the 33mph offence in Wales and dealt with by the driver awareness course.

As I pointed out before, the police do not count a FPN or a drivers awareness course as a prosecution. They are all different punishments in their own right.

A prosecution is taking the offence to it's highest level, risking the maximum penalties. Taking it all the way to court. The reason you never hear of them getting to court, is because people don't take that risk, they accept the lower penalties at the first opportunity.

The reason the article is not concerned with the 33mph offence, is because it is talking about drivers knowing that a 30mph zone is determined between the distance between lampposts, rather than way of a sign. Which is a story in it's own right.

And you get documentation as part of the offer. That documentation indicates the speed measured. Where are the sorrowful looking motorists gurning out of the pages of the Daily Mail whineing about the poor victimised motorist and stealth taxes. The Mail would LOVE that story (and probably pay far more than the cost of the speed awareness course for it). Yet they just don't exist.

Eric_Pisch

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And you get documentation as part of the offer. That documentation indicates the speed measured. Where are the sorrowful looking motorists gurning out of the pages of the Daily Mail whineing about the poor victimised motorist and stealth taxes. The Mail would LOVE that story (and probably pay far more than the cost of the speed awareness course for it). Yet they just don't exist.

the camera partnerships will be all gone in a couple of years :T:T

enforced 0% council tax rises, slashed local government budgets, and all revenues from scameras going to the treasury and none to the partnerships means the writings on the walls