Gatso Roadside Cameras

Wee_Willy_Harris

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

A chum of mine with points for 33 in a 30 zone would disagree.

Your chums a liar then.

Harry_Flashman

Knowing her - I doubt it.

I did say she should have contested it, but she just paid up. The fact remains, the camera copped her at that speed.

Sandoval

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

A chum of mine with points for 33 in a 30 zone would disagree.

Yeah loads of people who get caught doing 40 or so in a 30 will tell people they were "only slightly" over the limit and how unfair the whole system is and how police should be out catching the "real" criminals and so on.

Easier to tell your friends that than "I'm a complete tool for doing 45 miles and hour past a 30mph speed camera!"

It's sweet that you believed her though...

Wee_Willy_Harris

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Knowing her - I doubt it.

I did say she should have contested it, but she just paid up. The fact remains, the camera copped her at that speed.

Funny, there was a Chief Constable in the North (Cleveland, I believe) who was being slagged off in the letters page of the local paper about speed cameras. A number of the letter writers were banging on about being done for "2 or 3 MPH over the limit" and how petty it was. So, the Chief Constable replied, in the paper (and it was picked up by local radio and TV too, big story in them parts) that anyone who was prosecuted for speeding at 1,2 or 3 MPH over the limit could contact him and he would refund the fine and quash the points.

Have a guess how many took him up on that?

Harry_Flashman

Probably not many

However, this lady would not lie about something so trivial. So yes, I believe her.

Sandoval

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Probably not many

However, this lady would not lie about something so trivial. So yes, I believe her.

That's your choice. People believe all kinds of lies.

Doesn't alter the fact that she's making it up though.

Harry_Flashman

Whatever you say old chap. You hold your opinion and I'll hold mine and never the twain shall meet.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Probably not many

However, this lady would not lie about something so trivial. So yes, I believe her.

Oh, it was even less than not many. It was zero, nil, zilche, none.

liam8282

Sandoval wrote: »

For all the "revenue collection" waffle that you spout you're still trying to justify breaking the law and complaining that people are being caught doing it.

The article I happened to stumble across would disagree with your point,

"The most lucrative cameras in the country were thought to be located on the M42 in Birmingham. In autumn 2004 there were 12 cameras located along a 7-mile 50 mph section of the road, catching 1700 motorists a day, yielding £100,000 in daily fines.
Anyone who has ever used the M11 knows this one though: When first installed in 2000, this camera (pictured right) positioned near the end of the M11 just after the limit suddenly reduces from 70 to 50 mph on the southbound carriageway, caught a record 2,000 motorists breaking the law in just 24 hours."


Some cameras are positioned in areas that have no road safety issues (well none except the obvious), they are only placed there to "catch motorists out", therefore it is purely to generate income.


There is no justification for breaking the law, as you put it, but a bit of leniency and common sense is required in certain situations, and also the "entrapment" style positioning of cameras when speed limits suddenly change on the same stretch of road is a bit dodgy too.

roddydogs

You CAN be done for 32 in a 30 limit, I know someone who did, yes i do believe him. He also had to pay extra insurance.. Please dont bother posting if your going to argue. It was in Worthing, Sussex.