Blooming speed camera

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:37:53 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Maddock
<[email protected]> scribbled the following
nonsense:

>
>> Just bear in mind that they have a get out clause on the 14 days if the
>> person driving the vehicle was not the registered keeper. My Peugeot is on
>> contract hire and S Wales police took 8 - 12 weeks to get a ticket to me a
>> ticket in 2004. I challenged it on the 14 day grounds and was firmly put in
>> my place. They only have to deliver the NIP to the registered keeper in 14
>> days, not actually identify the driver and get the NIP to them.

>
>Didn't realise that, but it makes sense I guess.
>
>I got one for someone who I sold one of my cars to as the ownership
>hadn't been transferred. I got it within a few days of the offence.
>I have to say that the Police were actually very good when I called
>them to explain that the vehicle wasn't mine and I didn't have any
>details for the new owner. I was quite surprised, given the wording
>of the NIP was very threatening if I could not supply the details
>of the driver at the time of the offence, suggesting that I
>would be prosecuted if I did not provide this info. There didn't
>seem any leeway for the fact that I genuinely did not know it!
>Since then I always get any new owner of a car I sell to sign
>something detailing their name / address and the date (& time) that
>they took ownership of the car. Pedantic I know, but I'd prefer
>to be safe than sorry - just in case!
>
>Matt.


I always get them to fill out the V5 before they leave, then *I* can
send it off, after taking a photocopy. That way you have some clue of
who the vehicle is being sold to, and that the V5 has been sent off,
thus ensuring DVLA have been notified. I have taken a photocopy of
V5's ever since I sent one off for a vehicle I bought, phoned up DVLA
8 weeks later to ask where the V5 was. Not recieved was their answer.
Fill out form such and such and send it in to us along with some money
and we'll process it. Went into local DVLA office with the new
keepers part which I still had, and created hell. They dealt with it,
photocopied and advised when sending off V5's to photocopy them, as
you would not believe how many get lost......
--

Simon Isaacs

Peterborough 4x4 Club Newsletter Editor and Webmaster
Green Lane Association (GLASS) Financial Director
101 Ambi, undergoing camper conversion www.simoni.co.uk
1976 S3 LWT, Fully restored, ready for sale! Make me an offer!
Suzuki SJ410 (Wife's) 3" lift kit fitted, body shell now restored and mounted on chassis, waiting on a windscreen and MOT
Series 3 88" Rolling chassis...what to do next
1993 200 TDi Discovery
1994 200 TDi Discovery body sheel, being bobbed and modded.....
 

"john oakes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi folks
> Just joined the been flashed group. Do you normally get two
> flashes and how much is the fine. Dam Dam Dam.!!!!
>
> regards bottom lip wobble


I used to work with a guy whose wife works for the police department
responsible for issuing fixed penalty notices in Staffordshire. According to
her the police guidelines say that a notice must be issued to the owner of
the vehicle within three months of the offence being committed. They do
however issue notices after 3 months in the hope that people will still
'admit' to the offence! Apparently a high number of people do.
My next door neighbours wife was flashed by a camera in Chesterfield.
She got a notice a week later. It was a Gatso type (picture from behind)
camera. He asked for my advice. I told him to write to the police and tell
them that you cannot remember if it was yourself or your wife who was
driving at the time. After all, there is no way the police can prove it from
a grainy picture of the back of your vehicle. He sent them a letter to this
effect. 4 weeks later he got a reply saying that the police would not be
pursuing the matter any further. Result!!!!!

Stew

--
1990 Ninety 2.5 n/a D (Jasmine) - the off-road toy
Ex- Freelander Td4 5dr owner - the worst vehicle I have ever had!!!
New Jeep Cherokee Ltd 2.8CRD Auto - freelander replacement.


 
On or around Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:12:32 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-01-31, Bill Payer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 2/ Return to camera, throw a couple of old tyres around camera head, add a
>> sprinkle of petrol to taste, ignite and cook on a high temerature for 45
>> minutes.

>
>There's a camera on the A303 that I used to pass regularly, about 3
>times a year it would get this treatment. It's pointing up a very
>steep hill and catches people as they dash to overtake extremely slow
>lorries on a patch of short dual carriageway designed for the
>purpose.



there's one down the road a bit from here which is currently pointing
towards the adjacent pub car park.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Soon shall thy arm, unconquered steam! afar Drag the slow barge, or
drive the rapid car; Or on wide-waving wings expanded bear the
flying chariot through the field of air.- Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill
Payer <[email protected]> writes
>It's worth looking around for the rules for the correct use of fixed Gatso
>cameras, for instance, did you know that a Gatso camera must be supplied by
>mains 240v and NOT a generator providing 240v, motorway road works for
>example??
>The road that the camera is on must have the correct road signs within a
>certain distance of the camera (1km I think). The sign must display the
>camera symbol AND the road speed.
>The camera must be highly visible with flourescent markings to warn the
>driver that they are approaching a dangerous part of the road.


Have you got references for the above?

I was amused to see a Gatso being moved on the back of a flatbed t'other
day on the M5. It was in a long stretch of roadworks and the camera was
complete with genny and hanging out over the side of the lorry pointing
at the passing contraflow traffic. I wondered if it was powered up.


Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/
 
Bill Payer wrote:
> It's worth looking around for the rules for the correct use of fixed Gatso
> cameras, for instance, did you know that a Gatso camera must be supplied by
> mains 240v and NOT a generator providing 240v, motorway road works for
> example??
> The road that the camera is on must have the correct road signs within a
> certain distance of the camera (1km I think). The sign must display the
> camera symbol AND the road speed.


If the UK had employed the same principles as in France we wouldn't all
be complaining. In France about 100-odd meters before every speed
camera there is a HUGE sign stating that there is a camera there. And
it is always pretty obvious (from the ones I drive past) that they are
situated in genuine accident hot spots, and not to catch people out.
They have obviously learned the lessons of other countries well. Not
sure how well they are doing at reducing their dreadful mortality rate
on the roads tho, haven't seen any recent figures.

> The camera must be highly visible with flourescent markings to warn
> the driver that they are approaching a dangerous part of the road.


As I understood it, that is not strictly true. From what I have read,
if the camera is flourescent then the local camera safety partnership
gets any revenue generated from it, whereas if it is grey then central
government gets the money. Not sure how true that is now, but that's
what I read a couple of years ago when they started painting them
yellow. There is still at least one grey one around here that I know
of, and is active.

I have yet to see any evidence that shows speed cameras make any
difference to traffic safety. Road deaths etc have remained
stationary for quite a number of years now. When the local paper
published the stats for each speed camera in our area (from my own
stats analysis) in just over 30% of the speed camera locations the
accident rate had actually gone up. Most of them it made absolutely
no significant difference. There were a fraction where the rate
of accidents had gone down, but not with any significance. As I
recall, in a list of reasons for accidents speeding was 6th most
common cause. Not that the government would have you believe
that - every report they commission that doesn't tell them what
they want gets quietly buried. Having said that, I'm not condoning
speeding, in fact I think in heavily built up areas that it should
be reduced to 20mph, especially outside of schools - but then
that's only an opinion I've formed since we've had our 2 small
children given their propensity to run off in random directions
with no notice! But in other areas good road design plays far more
of a part in reducing accidents than restricting speed, as there is
always someone who is going to speed regardless of the limit.
Rant over! :)

Matt.



 
....and Matthew Maddock spake unto the tribes of Usenet, saying...

> Most of them it made absolutely
> no significant difference. There were a fraction where the rate
> of accidents had gone down, but not with any significance.


They always quote figures showing how installing a camera at a site reduced
the accident rate. That's fine, cos it's true - most of the sites do show a
drop in fatalities & injuries after a camera has been put there.

It's exactly what you would expect statistically. If the number of
accidents at a particular spot varies over time (as quasi-random events must
do), and you put a camera there after a peak in accidents in one year (as
the Talivan authorities tend to do), then the next year's accident rate is
highly likely to be lower. If (say) a junction on a fast road sees an
average of three serious accidents a year, with a minimum of one and a
maximum of five (over a ten-year period), it's likely that the camera will
be installed after a year of four or five accidents. Next year, the
accident rate is likely to drop towards the average again, and the stats
will show an APPARENT safety improvement after installing the camera. It's
common sense, really. It's called regression to the mean, and it's a
well-known statistical phenomenon - except, strangely enough, to the Govt's
statisticians, who seem never to have heard of it.

The true point is that the OVERALL rate of deaths and serious injuries is
pretty much static*, suggesting that either a) the cameras are not reducing
accidents but simply moving them elsewhere (a bit like how CCTV cameras in
city centres push crime into the suburbs), or that b) the reductions
reported at camera sites are only apparent, not genuine, and over a longer
period of time will prove to be just normal statistical variation.

Either way, a lot of money has been spent, a lot of motorists criminalised,
and a lot of decent people ****ed off, all for no net improvement in the
fatality rate. But it has raised millions for the Treasury without seeming
to raise taxes, so that's fine.

*Prior to the widespread use of "safety" cameras, when we had policemen on
the roads, the accident rate had fallen consistently since the mid-sixties.
Not any more.

<pet rant over>

--
Rich
==============================

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.


 
Richard Brookman wrote:
> ...and Matthew Maddock spake unto the tribes of Usenet, saying...
>
>
>>Most of them it made absolutely
>>no significant difference. There were a fraction where the rate
>>of accidents had gone down, but not with any significance.

>
>
> They always quote figures showing how installing a camera at a site reduced
> the accident rate. That's fine, cos it's true - most of the sites do show a
> drop in fatalities & injuries after a camera has been put there.
>
> It's exactly what you would expect statistically. If the number of
> accidents at a particular spot varies over time (as quasi-random events must
> do), and you put a camera there after a peak in accidents in one year (as
> the Talivan authorities tend to do), then the next year's accident rate is
> highly likely to be lower. If (say) a junction on a fast road sees an
> average of three serious accidents a year, with a minimum of one and a
> maximum of five (over a ten-year period), it's likely that the camera will
> be installed after a year of four or five accidents. Next year, the
> accident rate is likely to drop towards the average again, and the stats
> will show an APPARENT safety improvement after installing the camera. It's
> common sense, really. It's called regression to the mean, and it's a
> well-known statistical phenomenon - except, strangely enough, to the Govt's
> statisticians, who seem never to have heard of it.
>
> The true point is that the OVERALL rate of deaths and serious injuries is
> pretty much static*, suggesting that either a) the cameras are not reducing
> accidents but simply moving them elsewhere (a bit like how CCTV cameras in
> city centres push crime into the suburbs), or that b) the reductions
> reported at camera sites are only apparent, not genuine, and over a longer
> period of time will prove to be just normal statistical variation.
>
> Either way, a lot of money has been spent, a lot of motorists criminalised,
> and a lot of decent people ****ed off, all for no net improvement in the
> fatality rate. But it has raised millions for the Treasury without seeming
> to raise taxes, so that's fine.
>
> *Prior to the widespread use of "safety" cameras, when we had policemen on
> the roads, the accident rate had fallen consistently since the mid-sixties.
> Not any more.


There are no fixed speed cameras in County Durham - are the numbers of
deaths and serious injuries increasing? You all know the answer ...
http://www.abd.org.uk/local/durham.htm
 
Try this for starters..........enjoy.

http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/how.htm




"SpamTrapSeeSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Payer
> <[email protected]> writes
>>It's worth looking around for the rules for the correct use of fixed Gatso
>>cameras, for instance, did you know that a Gatso camera must be supplied
>>by
>>mains 240v and NOT a generator providing 240v, motorway road works for
>>example??
>>The road that the camera is on must have the correct road signs within a
>>certain distance of the camera (1km I think). The sign must display the
>>camera symbol AND the road speed.
>>The camera must be highly visible with flourescent markings to warn the
>>driver that they are approaching a dangerous part of the road.

>
> Have you got references for the above?
>
> I was amused to see a Gatso being moved on the back of a flatbed t'other
> day on the M5. It was in a long stretch of roadworks and the camera was
> complete with genny and hanging out over the side of the lorry pointing at
> the passing contraflow traffic. I wondered if it was powered up.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Simonm.
>
> --
> simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
> SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
> EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
> GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/



 
Matthew Maddock wrote:

> If the UK had employed the same principles as in France we wouldn't all
> be complaining. In France about 100-odd meters before every speed
> camera there is a HUGE sign stating that there is a camera there. And
> it is always pretty obvious (from the ones I drive past) that they are
> situated in genuine accident hot spots, and not to catch people out.


As opposed to the NZ philosophy. They've taken down the warning signs
and mostly use mobile cameras that they hide as well as they can. They
ostensibly concentrate on accident prone areas, but when you look at the
positioning of the cameras it is obvious that the entire speed camera
programme is geared towards revenue generation rather than road safety.


--
EMB
 
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:35:45 GMT, Bill Payer wrote:

> The road that the camera is on must have the correct road signs within
> a certain distance of the camera (1km I think). The sign must display
> the camera symbol AND the road speed.


Aye, the distance isn't fixed there is a range. ISTR that the first sign
has to have the camera warning and speed, the second can just be a
camera. The size of the signs is also important and the colour of
background outside the red border. The statute that gives the details is
online somewhere as I've seen it.

> The camera must be highly visible with flourescent markings to warn the
> driver that they are approaching a dangerous part of the road.


The cameras now can't be battleship grey they have to be brightly
painted. Mind you just a few bolbs of orange paint on the camera body
itself seem to satisfy that requirement. The post etc can still be grey.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
Back
Top