Concealed Speed Cameras!

[Trem]

I agree with you Dime. Now join the anti 4x4 brigade please :-]

 

[Tom]

this is what I understood from briefly reading that pepipoo site, but it seems that they wont fine you then for speeding if you either say I dont know or dont say anything. however they will possibly fine/arrest you for not knowing who was the driver at that time as it is your vehicle that was speeding so your responsibility. So you are not guilty of speeding, but guilty of not knowing who used your vehicle to speed with (I assume that if your vehicle was stolen than there will be no problem as long as you either have reported this or can somehow prove that it was already the case).

Well from my understanding what happens is that if you say you don't know who was driving the car, and don't show due diligence in determining who may have been (ie if you were sharing, retracing the route, fuel receipts, to help jog your memory etc), they send you an s172, which requires you -

to provide the name of the person who was driving their vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence. If the registered keeper cannot remember who was driving their vehicle, they may be liable to prosecution.

So basically, if you are arrested at home for an alleged offence which took place at an earlier time, its ok to answer 'I don't know' when asked of your whereabouts. If you're asked the same question about your car, and you give the same answer, then you can be prosecuted for that. They don't need to prove anything, just the fact that you say you don't know can land you in trouble. I reckon I could buy a gun, that gun gets used in a murder, traced to me, and say I didn't know where the gun was on the day (even though its back in my cabinet). Would they be able to charge me with anything just on that admission of ignorance? I don't know, but I sincerely doubt it.

Thats why I said 'Guilty until proven innocent'. Its blatently unfair, the onus should always be with the prosecutor to prove guilt, regardless of the alleged crime. If they can't do it, then either design better cameras (SPECS, Truvelo, Lidar etc), or fuckoff back to East Germany.

 

[Tom]

Right, if anybody is interested, the following two sites will provide invaluable information on the locations of speed cameras (fixed and mobile) around the country. Some of the sites in the first link are even so kind as to give you times and places of mobile locations, which is really something that they should announce on radio (not exactly where, just 'somewhere' around a particular road, and everyone will slow down for the entire length).

http://www.arrivealive.org.uk/britain/
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/grou...tentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=10540&l=2

If you want to avoid speed traps, then either get satnav and install a database of them, or buy a Road Angel, a device which you may find very useful.

Its worth mentioning that the government are currently trying legislate against the use of devices that passively monitor laser/radar signals while driving. Thats right, if you have a GATSO detector, it may become illegal to carry it in your car. Its separate from the wireless telegraphy act, just having one in your boot in a box with sellophane around it could be illegal.

Now I'm just waiting for roadside devices that poll a driver's mobile phone to see if its making a call, and for them to start issuing NiPs for that as well.

 

[TdC]

they are already illegal here in holland. also those flash-back things that react to cameras flashing you and stuff. I had a laugh then, but it's pretty sad imo.

 

[d1m3b4g]

I agree with you Dime. Now join the anti 4x4 brigade please :-]

Oh for sure.

 

[Will]

I agree with you Dime. Now join the anti 4x4 brigade please :-]

Clicky.

 

[rynnor]

iirc, 10% + 2 mph over; so the police aren't likely to pull you for doing 35. My mate was stopped for 39, but received a stern caution.

G

Actually you cant trust that formula as its different depending on where you are in the country - in some areas where speeding was being focused on they were giving tickets for doing 33/34 in a 30 zone (this was in lincolnshire I think - I heard it on a radio interview).

 

[Calaen]

Yer, cos speeding and crack dealing are the same thing.

They both have the potential to kill people...

The whole point of speed cameras is to keep speed down, It costs money to place the cameras they might aswell make some money back, if your dumb enough to get caught tough shit im afraid.

 

[Trem]

They both have the potential to kill people...

The whole point of speed cameras is to keep speed down, It costs money to place the cameras they might aswell make some money back, if your dumb enough to get caught tough shit im afraid.

Erm. The whole point of speed cameras is to make money, the justification that the goverment uses is to save lifes, which is of course bullshit.

 

[Tom]

http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=2663&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Very interesting, basically you don't admit to the offence on the form they send, but you send them an admission statement under PACE rules. This statement, although perfectly legal, then becomes inadmissable because the current NiP followed by S172 (failure to declare driver) is incompatiable with PACE rules.

So fuck the money grabbing bastards, and admit to the offence via a letter under PACE, and chances are you may get away with it.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Fill out the form to completion except the signature.

If it is not signed it is not a valid legal document, and they're very slow at responding (if at all) if you don't do this.

 

[Trem]

The chances are they will take you to court, add another £30 to the fine and costs.


Like they did with me.

 

[Tom]

http://www.ibinflashed.com/

Looks like the law-abiding lentil chewing minority have decided to hack their way into legitimacy.....

http://www.ibinflashed.com/news/news.asp (real page)

 

[old.Osy]

Yer, cos speeding and crack dealing are the same thing.

Both kill people.

 

[pcg79]

Both kill people.

then explain how motorways are the safest roads in britain

 

[Trem]

Also quite possibly the safest roads in Europe are our motorways. If there is any other countries road that comes close to ours for safety I would say its the Autobahn......you know, the German motorway that doesn't have speed restrictions.

 

[maxi]

but dis isn't britain,

Dis Is Die Autobahn

and that whole equating crack dealing to speeding is absolute bollocks.

 

[old.Osy]

I thought the discussion was about speeding in general, not a certain road, from a certain country. So the police/government wants to make a buck over you breaking the rules... SO ? They did this forever, and it's all under the wing of the mighty law. Don't break the rules, I suppose

I'm not trying to bring crack dealing and speeding under the same roof, I just noticed how both kill people.

I know how annoying it is to be on a fucking road that's empty for miles, and not being able to push the pedal, because of the silly speed limit. It's a matter of common sense, when to push it or not. And the police has no real way of assesing your common sense. Hence the speed limit.

I got hit by a motorcycle this spring, me being on my bike. Hit me from behind, I had no chance of avoiding the accident whatsoever. Apparently he had just 10 miles above the speed limit, judging the tyre marks, and screeching marks on the pavement. I was incredibly lucky, and got off with a few bruises and minor wounds. Not something I can say about my bike, which was totally trashed.

First thing he did after getting up was to pull his motorcycle off the road, then came running towards me. I was on the ground, still under shock, trying to realize if I'm still functional, checking for broken bones, etc. Do you know what he did when I got up ? He started yelling at me, in a violent manner, almost ready to kick my butt, claiming I was at fault.

Now put yourself in my shoes, and tell me the police is at fault for abusing you speed breakers.

 

[Bodhi]

Chances are you were behaving like a proper cyclist, and moseying along lost in your own world and cutting people up with gay abandon, like most of the other knuckleheads I see on bikes these days. In fact I know you were, because if you'd spared a thought for other traffic you probably would have heard the motorcyclist screaming up behind you. They're quite noisy those things are you know. Your attitude afterwards kinda sums it up for me - "What did I do?". A biker isn't going to crash into you and feel you are at fault unless you've done something pretty retarded.

But congratulations - you've evaded natural selection. Have a gold star.

 

[Will]

A biker isn't going to crash into you and feel you are at fault unless you've done something pretty retarded.

Unless the biker is a cock. Which it sounds like. If you've kncoked someone over, even if it wasn't your fault, you don't come running up and start shouting at them. Unless you are a cock.

 

[Gray]

Other day i think i seen the most stupidest act ever from a cyclist. I was going over a bridge which crosses the Mersey, normal day peak hour traffic (i thought), next minute, all the other cars infront slam on, its 2 lane traffic each way and im thinking "what the fuck? hope im not gonna be stuck behind a tractor..."

As i get closer, cars are swerving out of the way, and what do i see? a cyclist peddling over the bridge. Probably wouldnt have been bothered but the fact he was causing cars to swerve, i noticed there was a perfectly good bike lane which he didnt even use.

Had me raging :/. Nuggethead

 

[old.Osy]

No Bodhi, I wasn't cycling in a iresponsible manner. I was on the right side of the road, close to the sideboard. Traffic was light, just a couple of cars and this guy, speeding through them, or something. He probably noticed me too late, as he was about to pass a car through the right side.

His statement towards the police was that I was on the middle of the road, which was a blatant lie. Unfortunately, no witnesses around, and the ones in the cars that saw the accident didn't care, and drove by.

 

[Tom]

Erm don't start on about cyclists being wankers, I've been cycling for nearly 20 years and its probably helped contribute to my totally clean driving license. Cyclists are like motorists, theres good ones and bad ones, its just that bad cyclists don't kill people, bad drivers do. The majority of experienced cyclists are very observant indeed.

And from the sound of it the motorcyclist wasn't paying attention.

 

[dysfunction]

As a pedestrian I find a lot of cyclists think they can ignore the rules of the road.
Ive nearly been run over by cyclists flying through red lights at a pedestrian crossing especially in the City of London. They also think they can ride on the pavement.

 

[DaGaffer]

As a pedestrian I find a lot of cyclists think they can ignore the rules of the road.
Ive nearly been run over by cyclists flying through red lights at a pedestrian crossing especially in the City of London. They also think they can ride on the pavement.

Its an acknowledged problem - the cops in London are now starting to target errant cyclists because their flaunting of the rules has got so bad/dangerous and there are so many more of them since the congestion charge came in.

Sorry Tom, but certainly in London, you see more bad cyclists than good. I've lost count of the times I've seen them break the law. And I can see it from all perspectives, I drive a car, ride a bike and a scooter, and from any of these viewpoints cyclists are by far the most dangerous, to themselves and others.

 

[caLLous]

its just that bad cyclists don't kill people, bad drivers do.

What about the bad cyclists that are the cause of fatal accidents?

 

[Tom]

What about the bad cyclists that are the cause of fatal accidents?

Well 3500 people die on our roads each year. How many of those are attributable to cyclists? Probably about 1.

Oh, and if you're saying that London cyclists are particularly bad, then don't forget to give a mention to London drivers, because they're generally a bunch of twaaaats. Actually, while I'm at it, anybody south of Coventry is a wanker anyway. Its much friendlier up north.

 

[DaGaffer]

Well 3500 people die on our roads each year. How many of those are attributable to cyclists? Probably about 1.

Oh, and if you're saying that London cyclists are particularly bad, then don't forget to give a mention to London drivers, because they're generally a bunch of twaaaats. Actually, while I'm at it, anybody south of Coventry is a wanker anyway. Its much friendlier up north.

Probably not. Most of the cyclists who get killed probably do so because they're doing something stupid, therefore, even if the only deaths they contribute to are their own, its probably substantially higher than '1'.

London drivers are getting worse, no doubt about it, its a horrible, stressful place to drive, with a lethal combination of the rich, the stupid, the unlicensed and the the untrained, with added juicy bonuses like the congestion charge to give it that extra boost.

As for it being friendlier up north, you'll get no argument from me.

 

[dysfunction]

As for it being friendlier up north, you'll get no argument from me.

Its cos they are all related!

 

[GekuL]

As for it being friendlier up north, you'll get no argument from me.

Because they'll kick the shit out of you if you do?