Speed Cameras: what offence would this be?

Johnmcl7

londonTiger wrote: »

What I learnt was when they have speed cameras that's usually because at least 5 people have died on that stretch. When you have all these signs on a section of road such as no overtake, SLOW markings, signs indicating junction/bends ahead. These are all in effect gravestones or accident warning markings because every time there was an accident the council went over there and put more hazard warning signs on to reduce the accidents. A speed camera is often the last straw to force motorists to reduce speeds.

Although there are some speed cameras that have been placed in accident blackspots, it's not a requirement nor are there any current guidelines for camera positioning so that would be a rarity rather than the usual case. Some road markings may be updated after a fatal accident but it's not the usual case that these markings are gravestones.


I'm sure the speed awareness courses have some useful information but they're remarkably bad for perpetuating urban myths particularly those including the braking distances of modern cars and weights which they're far wrong on as well. I'm still surprised they're cheeky enough to claim cameras are deployed to accident blackspots though.

People often complain that they speed camera was hidden because it was behind a bend or obscured from view. To be honest if you can't see a speed camera (at least the big old yellow boxes) then you're probably not paying attention and if there was a backlog of cars stuck at traffic lights you probably won't pay enough attention to spot the hazard and brake in time.

There's no requirement for static cameras to be visible nor any warnings beforehand, many are now painted in dull colours and some are hidden entirely. The numerous speeding vans have a range of up to 1km and take just a 1/3 of a second to capture your speed meaning they've seen you long before you saw them. Some hide the vans meaning you never see them, some forces have gone even further with one repainting their camera van to look like a builder's van and another using a horse box to hide their cameras. No much how attention you're paying, you're not going to see them.


I don't have anything particular against speed cameras however I disagree with some of the claims they're making in these speed awareness courses and I don't think hidden cameras are the way to use the technology - visible average speed cameras on the contrary can be remarkably effective when deployed at roadworks for example.


John

Spicy_McHaggis

londonTiger wrote: »

I've been on a speed awareness course and it was surprisingly helpful. A class of 30 people were clueless on what the speed limits were on regular roads, carriageways & motorways.. to be fair everyone had wild guesses on carriageways - because most people just follow the speed sign which can be 40, 50 or no speed limit where people do 70 unless they have a dashcam which would alert them that the limit is 60 as it's a carriageway and not a motorway.

Anyhow, it did change my view on what speed cameras were for. I went in thinking it was entirely revenue generation.

What I learnt was when they have speed cameras that's usually because at least 5 people have died on that stretch. When you have all these signs on a section of road such as no overtake, SLOW markings, signs indicating junction/bends ahead. These are all in effect gravestones or accident warning markings because every time there was an accident the council went over there and put more hazard warning signs on to reduce the accidents. A speed camera is often the last straw to force motorists to reduce speeds.

People often complain that they speed camera was hidden because it was behind a bend or obscured from view. To be honest if you can't see a speed camera (at least the big old yellow boxes) then you're probably not paying attention and if there was a backlog of cars stuck at traffic lights you probably won't pay enough attention to spot the hazard and brake in time.

So how did you get caught then?


Did they also tell you that once the black spot problem was cured and the camera no longer fitted the criteria it should be removed? No, I bet they didn't and the reason they're notbis they're revenue builders.

Still some of us don't need to worry too much while you're filling the speed awareness courses up, not wearing your seatbelt and stopping in box junctions. You pay we don't.:rotfl:

Cornucopia

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

With that well known site as your source who can argue against you.

Unfair! If you have reason to believe the Wiki summary is wrong or over-simplified then state your reasoning/analysis/research.

Implying that it must be wrong because it's Wiki is unhelpful.

Here's the much longer UK Government position:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/

Interesting, but I'm still of the opinion that the activity I described in post #1 does not meet the definition of (Attempting to) Pervert the Course of Justice.

In particular, the offence is only possible once "the course of justice starts", which is when:

- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or

- investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or

- proceedings have started or are about to start.

brat

Richard53 wrote: »

It must vary across the country. When I had my last speeding disagreement with the authorities, I asked what the criteria were for putting the camera van at that particular spot. I was told two serious accidents in five years was the trigger. When I asked them to define 'serious' they declined, and when I asked the dates of the accidents they wouldn't tell me, citing DPA.

It used to be the case that there had to be evidence of accidents in the area before a speed camera was sited in that area. This is from the Safespeed site

1. At least 4 KSI per km in last three calendar years (not per annum)
2. At least 8 PIA per km in last three calendar years
3. Causation factors indicate that speeding was a contributory factor in some or all of the accidents – sites that are clearly not speed-related have been de-selected
4. 85th percentile speed at least 10% above speed limit plus 2mph - i.e. 35mph in a 30 zone) for free-flowing traffic (excluding any rush-hour periods)
5. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit

Can anyone else see that these pre siting criteria (esp points 1 and 2) were designed to make the effectiveness of speed cameras look much better than they actually are? :cool:

Muscle750

I've always wondered what would happen if when caught you implied that your car had been cloned ie someone had copied your number plate and had secured it to a similar same colour vehicle as yours and if this has actually happened which I'm sure it has how much did it take convincing the authorities that it wasn't you. if you were caught within 10 miles of home I think you would have a issue but if you were caught in saŷ Penzance and you lived in Yorkshire etc would you Have such a big problem convincing and also obviously if the photographic eveidence didn't show the driver

Happychappy

The new speed cameras on the M25 are doing a roaring trade, I imagine everyone will say they are hidden behind bushes etc, when in fact they are hidden in plain sight

HADECS3

RichardD1970

londonTiger wrote: »

to be fair everyone had wild guesses on carriageways - because most people just follow the speed sign which can be 40, 50 or no speed limit where people do 70 unless they have a dashcam which would alert them that the limit is 60 as it's a carriageway and not a motorway.

Don't know of any road in GB that has no speed limit.

There are plenty of non motorway carriageways that have a 70mph speed limit.

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

Unfair! If you have reason to believe the Wiki summary is wrong or over-simplified then state your reasoning/analysis/research.

Implying that it must be wrong because it's Wiki is unhelpful.

Here's the much longer UK Government position:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/

Interesting, but I'm still of the opinion that the activity I described in post #1 does not meet the definition of (Attempting to) Pervert the Course of Justice.

In particular, the offence is only possible once "the course of justice starts", which is when:

- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or

- investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or

- proceedings have started or are about to start.

PCJ would never be considered.

Most Camera Partnerships have some police link in the prosecution process, so 'obstruction' would be a possibility, albeit a very tenuous one which probably wouldn't be used.

If caught in the act you would be very likely to be arrested on suspicion of attempting to cause criminal damage.

Cornucopia

Thanks - that sounds entirely plausible.

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

PCJ would never be considered.

Most Camera Partnerships have some police link in the prosecution process, so 'obstruction' would be a possibility, albeit a very tenuous one which probably wouldn't be used.

If caught in the act you would be very likely to be arrested on suspicion of attempting to cause criminal damage.

Shouldn't all camera partnerships have a link to the police?