Speed traps

Aylesbury_Duck

Muscle750 wrote: »

Up near coventry last year the plod were using a unmarked skoda coming off a roundabout then slowing down encouraging people to overtake and guess what............a hundred yards down the road a layby with a speed van in it . It was witnessed by the same people two days running doing it

Seems fair to me. If people are daft enough to break the limit whilst overtaking, they deserve the penalty.

facade

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Seems fair to me. If people are daft enough to break the limit whilst overtaking, they deserve the penalty.

Of course, and if people decide to overtake at the limit, and change a quick safe manoeuvre into a long dangerous one, they can nick 'em for dangerous driving instead

Bonus

SallyBurton

I had exactly the same experience last week. I was on the road into Pickering from Whitby...guy with handheld camera just after the 30 mph sign. I was clocked at 35mph. I was reducing my speed and hadn't done it fast enough. I have been offered a speed awareness course. It's nonsense about the 10%+2mph myth. Fair enough..I was speeding..and I shouldn't have been. It all makes someone plenty of money . I feel your pain.

waamo

35 is 10%+2 so how is it nonsense?

MobileSaver

SallyBurton wrote: »

just after the 30 mph sign. I was clocked at 35mph. I was reducing my speed and hadn't done it fast enough. ... It all makes someone plenty of money.

You saw the large "30" signs at least 100 feet away, probably several hundred feet away, decided to ignore them and then sailed past the 30 mph speed limit signs at well over that... the saying goes "a fool and their money are easily parted!"

Look on the bright side though; if you'd hit a pedestrian while speeding at 35mph they'd be five times more likely to be dead than if you'd been obeying the speed limit so your day could have been a whole lot worse.

TooManyPoints

...so your day could have been a whole lot worse.

The pedestrian's probably would not have been too clever either!

Car_54

SallyBurton wrote: »

I had exactly the same experience last week. I was on the road into Pickering from Whitby...guy with handheld camera just after the 30 mph sign. I was clocked at 35mph. I was reducing my speed and hadn't done it fast enough. I have been offered a speed awareness course. It's nonsense about the 10%+2mph myth. Fair enough..I was speeding..and I shouldn't have been. It all makes someone plenty of money . I feel your pain.

10% plus 2 is the starting point for action, not the "leeway".

AndyMc.....

SallyBurton wrote: »

I had exactly the same experience last week. I was on the road into Pickering from Whitby...guy with handheld camera just after the 30 mph sign. I was clocked at 35mph. I was reducing my speed and hadn't done it fast enough. I have been offered a speed awareness course. It's nonsense about the 10%+2mph myth. Fair enough..I was speeding..and I shouldn't have been. It all makes someone plenty of money . I feel your pain.

You chose to make them money.

molerat

You got clocked at 35 so your speedo was most likely showing at least 38 after you had gone past the 30 signs. Looks like you could do with that speed awareness course - not insured with Admiral by any chance ?

Joe_Horner

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

I thought I wasn't imagining things:

In 2001 the law was changed so that speed cameras had to be painted yellow to ensure visibility. Many other rules were also brought in regarding speed cameras.

"The regulations decree that:

speed camera housings must be coloured yellow
camera housings cannot be obscured, e.g. by trees, bushes or signs
cameras must be visible from 60m away in 40mph or less zones and 100m for all other speed limit zones
signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are located or where mobile cameras are in operation
in order to make them visible, mobile speed camera operators must wearing fluorescent clothing, and their vehicles should be marked with reflective strips
camera sites are to be reviewed at least every six months in order to ensure that cameras are adequately visible and signed."

Since it's risen from the dead anyway, a small lesson in comprehension here.

The part in bold (regardless of whether or not it concerns cameras, or radar guns, or both) doesn't say that warning signs must be positioned for traps.

It says that they mustn't be positioned where there isn't a trap. So a local authority can't go around putting up signs warning of enforcement as a deterrant in places where no enforcement takes place.

There's a world of difference!