Speed traps

Car_54

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

If you want them, you find them. I'm not a lawyer. You seem to need an awful lot of detail. Me - I'm satisfied if someone says something, or I read something from a reliable place, I'm inclined to believe it.

In this case, you have read something from an UNreliable source. As pointed out earler, it even contradicts itself by going on to say the regulations don't have to be obeyed!

As a matter of interest, how do you decide whether a particular website is reliable?

shaun_from_Africa

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

A one minute search brought up:

https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/personal/speeding

Look under Rules and Regulations for Speed Cameras.

And a one minute search on that website brought up

No reliance on information

The content on our site is provided for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

Although we make reasonable efforts to update the information on our site, we make no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, that the content on our site is accurate, complete or up-to-date.

So even the website owners admit that the information on there may not be accurate or up to date.

poppasmurf_bewdley

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And a one minute search on that website brought up


So even the website owners admit that the information on there may not be accurate or up to date.

So could this website!

shaun_from_Africa

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

So could this website!

Correct. Any website could post incorrect or outdated information but I would certainly put more trust in the one I linked to which goes to the Department of Transport Gov't website over one which is run by a legal company touting for business.

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

In this case, you have read something from an UNreliable source. As pointed out earler, it even contradicts itself by going on to say the regulations don't have to be obeyed!

As a matter of interest, how do you decide whether a particular website is reliable?

His source is reliable in that it states signage is not a legal requirement. He chooses not to see that part.

shopbot

Marktheshark wrote: »

If he was holding the camera, unless he stopped you and served you a ticket, you got away with it.
Only a camera van or fixed speed cameras send NIP by post.

That's not correct. If it's unsafe or impractical to stop the motorist then the matter can be dealt with via post.

Retrogamer

waamo wrote: »

There are camera along the M6, M1 and M25 that are either grey or hidden behind gantries.

If the law says they should be visible and yellow then I would like to see that law. I can find several sites that say this is the law but none link to it.

They also say that failure to obey this law doesn't invalidate the NIP. What kind of law is it if it doesn't need to be obeyed? That sounds more like a guideline than a law.

The law doesn't state they should be visible and yellow as far as i know. I can't find any legislation on them needing to be line that. After all, who would be punished for breaking that "law"

That's just a guideline they should be following because it's in the public interest to operate this way.

If they don't follow the guidelines that isn't a defence for you breaking the law if you were caught speeding.

GothicStirling

I live in a town near the Northumbrian coast, and its exactly on hot days like yesterday, where people seem to leave common sense at home, and accidents ensue down to carelessness. Yesterday (I work at a hospital with an A&E, we had one motorcycle fatality, and another fatality when a transit van decided to overtake on a single lane stretch of the A1, and collided with an oncoming car.

I know the roads in Whitby, they're 30 mph for a reason.

jimjames

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are located or where mobile cameras are in operation

I think you're interpreting it wrongly. From my non-legal reading it's suggesting that signs can only be placed where cameras operate ie. they can't put up signs that are a deterrent in their own right - it has to be that cameras operate in that area - although presumably not all the time.

It's not suggesting that every mobile speed camera needs to have a sign warning of it.

MobileSaver

signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are located or where mobile cameras are in operation

jimjames wrote: »

I think you're interpreting it wrongly.

+1

Even though the "regulations" cited by poppasmurf were no such thing and irrelevant anyway, what they meant was that if you put a sign up then you can only do so where there really are cameras/housings. The "regulations" did not mean that you have to put signs up.