Speed camera advise
sharon
Can anyone help on how speed cameras work? I got flashed today but I
think there was only 1 flash, I thought 2 are needed for a valid
prosecution??
I shouldn't have been flashed - I know from a friend of mine whos married
to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)... my speedo was reading
about 40-45, so with overread I should have been ok?!?!
I really hope it's going to be ok, I already have 9 points and a ban is
not what I want for Xmas :(
Thanks for any help :)
xx
Mrcheerful
Usually there are two flashes or none at all depending on the type of
camera.
just hope, I have often been flashed by cameras but touch wood never been
sent a sumons/nip
John
wrote:
I believe they have 14 days to contact you otherwise you should be in
the clear. From the sounds of it though it doesn't look good.
I got flashed in Scotland last year and it was only one flash. I
thought it was a 70mph limit on that particular road. The ticket said
I was doing 78 in a 60. So even if it had of been a 70 their gadget
said I was going faster even if my speedo was 70. I got 3pts and �60
fine.
I know people who have been flashed at 37 in a 30 so it aint worth the
risk especially at the lower speeds. There are some major roads into
and out of towns that they deliberately reduce the speed limit from 50
or 40 to lower speeds to catch people out and generate revenue and
profits. I have nothing against 20 zones near school and 30 on minor
roads in residential areas but a lot of it is getting ridiculous now.
I wish you well but I don't think it sounds good.
John
Phil L
Depending on your location, you can opt to go on a 'speed awareness' course
rather than get the points, although it still sets you back �60, but if
you've already been on the course, you aren't eligible.
--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008
®i©ardo
...and if you've already got 9 points on your licence? Seems like the
lady has a death wish.
--
Moving things in still pictures
Jack Rabbitt
"sharon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:hg0ufc$ql7$1...@aioe.org...
>my speedo was reading about 40-45, so with overread I should have been
>ok?!?!
If its a 30 mph limit, you get 30 + 10% + 2 leway, so basically anything
over 36mph is liable for a ticket.
Speedos do overread, but even if it was on 40mph, it was more or less about
37/38mph, which is still way over.
John Turner
"sharon" wrote
> I really hope it's going to be ok, I already have 9 points and a ban is
> not what I want for Xmas :(
So what was wrong with doing 30mph? If you get a ticket it's your own
stupid fault - seems you don't learn!
Merry Christmas,
John.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Hi :)
>
>Can anyone help on how speed cameras work? I got flashed today but I
>think there was only 1 flash, I thought 2 are needed for a valid
>prosecution??
>
Not always.
>I shouldn't have been flashed - I know from a friend of mine whos married
>to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)... my speedo was reading
>about 40-45, so with overread I should have been ok?!?!
>
No chance.
If your Speedo is reading 40-45 and you are in a 30 limit, then if the
camera was loaded, you *will* be done.
Unless the copper's wife friend knows the specific camera, or knows
that is the policy of that particular force, then you certainly can't
rely on it being set as high as 40. The ACPO guidelines would suggest
35.
And while your Speedo *may* be up to 10% high, most are more like 3-5%
high, which would still mean you would have been doing over 40, never
mind 35, if your reading was 45.
>I really hope it's going to be ok, I already have 9 points and a ban is
>not what I want for Xmas :(
>
You are very probably getting one.
Why on *earth* were you driving at that speed in a 30 limit if you
already have 9 points.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I've got to sit down and work out where I stand.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
martin
Old country proverb. You don't learn anything the second time you're
kicked by a mule. Seems this is your 4th time.
Without being horrible, it's better you're kicked off the road until you
learn to drive. Thank god there wasn't a kid you hit at 45 instead of 30.
R Gower
>
> Can anyone help on how speed cameras work? I got flashed today but I
> think there was only 1 flash, I thought 2 are needed for a valid
> prosecution??
>
It depends if it takes a picture from infront or behind and how it is
controlled. RADAR or sensors in the road etc, also the make of it.
> I shouldn't have been flashed
Not if you were travelling at the speed limit set for that part of the road,
I agree with you.
> - I know from a friend of mine whos married
> to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)...
Unfortunately you were given incorrect information. It would most
likely be set for 35mph to make sure people travelling at 1 or 2mph
over were not flashed and to allow for errors.
Your friend's husband would not know what it is set to as that is
nothing to do with the police. It is the Safety Camera Partnership in
the area who set and adjust the limits.
> my speedo was reading
> about 40-45, so with overread I should have been ok?!?!
>
So you don't know how fast you were going? Even at 40mph
showing on your car speedometer you would be flashed as you
found out. That would be above the limit the camera was set to.
> I really hope it's going to be ok, I already have 9 points and a ban is
> not what I want for Xmas :(
>
You sound a complete idiot - probably a woman driver.
> Thanks for any help :)
>
Stop listening to urban myths from friends of friends. If they want
to test a speed camera out, tell them to do it in their own car.
Drive in accordance with the speed limits. if you are a genuinely
thick woman, each area has lists of where speed cameras are sited.
Unfortunately the revenue raising areas will miss off some of the sites
for mobile cameras.
> xx
Mike Ross
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:29:32 +0000 (UTC), sharon <nos...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
<snip>
>>I shouldn't have been flashed - I know from a friend of mine whos married
>>to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)... my speedo was reading
>>about 40-45, so with overread I should have been ok?!?!
>No chance.
>
>If your Speedo is reading 40-45 and you are in a 30 limit, then if the
>camera was loaded, you *will* be done.
That's quite a big 'if' - the second one. I think quite a few cameras are
unloaded; at least I've heard that rumoured, and heard of enough people getting
flashed and nothing happening to give the rumour credence.
>Why on *earth* were you driving at that speed in a 30 limit if you
>already have 9 points.
A very good question, and an extremely foolish OP.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Gary Baldi
> "sharon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:hg0ufc$ql7$1...@aioe.org...
> >my speedo was reading about 40-45, so with overread I should have been
> >ok?!?!
>
> If its a 30 mph limit, you get 30 + 10% + 2 leway, so basically anything
> over 36mph is liable for a ticket.
>
> Speedos do overread, but even if it was on 40mph, it was more or less about
> 37/38mph, which is still way over.
Guy in our office just been offered a speed awareness course in lieu
of points for being done for 36 in a 30.
Worrying for him was (a) "I didnt see any flashes" and (b) "I always
drive that speed down that bit of road, I thought it was a 40 limit"
Adrian
saying:
> If its a 30 mph limit, you get 30 + 10% + 2 leway, so basically anything
> over 36mph is liable for a ticket.
That's a "guideline". It's perfectly legitimate for a ticket to be issued
for 31 in a 30.
Philip K
wrote:
>Can anyone help on how speed cameras work? I got flashed today but I
>think there was only 1 flash, I thought 2 are needed for a valid
>prosecution??
No flashes needed for a valid prosecution. You don't even need a
photograph - the opinion of a serving police office will normally be
sufficient.
Different technologies flash different numbers of times - Gatso twice,
Truevelo once, Specs none.
Spend some time at http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/lineup.htm - based on
the circumstances you described, you may have some non-driving time in
your near future :-(
Doctor Watson
alan.holmes
"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zkTUm.14673$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> sharon wrote:
>> Hi :)
>>
>> Can anyone help on how speed cameras work? I got flashed today but I
>> think there was only 1 flash, I thought 2 are needed for a valid
>> prosecution??
>>
>> I shouldn't have been flashed - I know from a friend of mine whos
>> married to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)... my speedo
>> was reading about 40-45, so with overread I should have been ok?!?!
>>
>> I really hope it's going to be ok, I already have 9 points and a ban
>> is not what I want for Xmas :(
>>
>> Thanks for any help :)
>>
>> xx
Always ask to see the 'evidence', if you only get a single picture, ask how
are you going to confirm the alleged speed.
Do not accept the NIP unless they can prove without doubt that you have
exceeded the speed limit.
Alan
Graham.
"alan.holmes" <alan.h...@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:4ZaVm.39933$lP6....@newsfe13.ams2...
West Yorkshire police give you web access to a pair of images,
but fail to tell you the time difference between them or the distance between
the road markings.
They also make available to me the radar calibration certificate from the Gatso
factory in The Nederlands, presumably issued when the camera was made.
It's as if they are relying on the radar evidence, and merely using the images
for identification of the vehicle.
Oh, and while I have no reason to believe that it's not my vehicle in the pictures,
why do they obscure the reg plate? The images are only viewable by the driver
(password required) and it would appear I can't post them somewhere for you
lot to view as it would be a copyright breach
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Norman Wells
> Oh, and while I have no reason to believe that it's not my vehicle in
> the pictures, why do they obscure the reg plate? The images are only
> viewable by
> the driver (password required) and it would appear I can't post them
> somewhere for you lot to view as it would be a copyright breach
I doubt it. The photograph is created entirely by an automated process with
no creativity from an author. I think therefore that no copyright will
attach to it.
In any case, the remedy for copyright infringement would be for the owner of
the camera to sue you for damages. That would be absolutely futile as they
have suffered none.
Farmer Giles
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ok0rpF...@mid.individual.net...
I've just got one for 35mph - just after where the speed limit changed from
40 to 30. I have been offered - and have accepted - a Speed Awareness
Course. Having had a clean licence for over 35 years I regard this as a bit
harsh!
Pedt
sharon <nos...@nospam.com> wibbled
>Hi :)
>
>Can anyone help on how speed cameras work? I got flashed today but I
>think there was only 1 flash, I thought 2 are needed for a valid
>prosecution??
No. Depends on type.
>
>I shouldn't have been flashed - I know from a friend of mine whos married
>to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)... my speedo was reading
>about 40-45, so with overread I should have been ok?!?!
>
>I really hope it's going to be ok, I already have 9 points and a ban is
>not what I want for Xmas :(
You were doing somewhere between 40 and 45 in a 30 zone because you
thought you could get away with it?
Even allowing for the usual odometer over-read, you were going too fast.
As you already have 9 points then I rather think you are going to get a
totting-up ban for a Christmas present.
Let me guess, the 9 points already on your licence were for speeding.
--
Pedt
I used to be Unique, now I'm just Antique
Bob Ferguson
Been discussed here to exhaustion. They are under no obligation to provide
you with any evidence before you accept or challenge the allegation. They
only become obligated to provide the evidence once you have been summonsed
and entered a 'Not Guilty' plea.
Although police forces will often provide photographs on request, Safety
Camera Parnerships invariably never do. This is because the latter receive
approximately 15% of the fine, but only if you pay up without going to
court - otherwise they get nothing. There is much anecdotal evidence of
NIPs being cancelled due to 'administrative errors' once they are
challenged.
I myself am still waiting to see if I get a NIP having been flashed by a
camera in a 50 mph limit. The GPS track data clearly shows that I passed
the camera at 46 mph.
Bob Ferguson
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:vs88i51ueme37higl...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:25:35 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:29:32 +0000 (UTC), sharon <nos...@nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>I shouldn't have been flashed - I know from a friend of mine whos married
>>>to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)... my speedo was reading
>>>about 40-45, so with overread I should have been ok?!?!
>
>>No chance.
>>
>>If your Speedo is reading 40-45 and you are in a 30 limit, then if the
>>camera was loaded, you *will* be done.
>
> That's quite a big 'if' - the second one. I think quite a few cameras are
> unloaded; at least I've heard that rumoured, and heard of enough people
> getting
> flashed and nothing happening to give the rumour credence.
>
The inards of the cameras are quite expensive. IIRC only around 25% of them
have live inards (but exact proportion may vary), but the remainder usually
have an active radar unit plus the flash (the two cheapest parts). It is
quite likely that the operators can set these exactly on the speed limit as
a deterent as no NIP will ever be produced.
We have quite a few red light cameras around here and the ones with no live
camera inside are easy to spot as the flash unit is rectangular instead of
round (plus there is no lens in the upper window, but that is harder to
spot).
Bob Ferguson
"R Gower" <r.g...@nospam.ntl.com> wrote in message
news:hg16ii$55s$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> "sharon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:hg0ufc$ql7$1...@aioe.org...
>> Hi :)
>>
>> Can anyone help on how speed cameras work? I got flashed today but I
>> think there was only 1 flash, I thought 2 are needed for a valid
>> prosecution??
>>
>
> It depends if it takes a picture from infront or behind and how it is
> controlled. RADAR or sensors in the road etc, also the make of it.
>
>> I shouldn't have been flashed
>
> Not if you were travelling at the speed limit set for that part of the
> road,
> I agree with you.
>
>> - I know from a friend of mine whos married
>> to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)...
>
> Unfortunately you were given incorrect information. It would most
> likely be set for 35mph to make sure people travelling at 1 or 2mph
> over were not flashed and to allow for errors.
Not always the case. Some cameras are often set higher to catch the more
dangerous speeders. There is much (admitedly anecdotal) evidence that the
film in some cameras won't last a morning if the camera is set close to the
speed limit.
Adrian
much like they were saying:
> There is much (admitedly anecdotal) evidence that the film in some
> cameras won't last a morning if the camera is set close to the speed
> limit.
Of course, that ceases to become an issue with digital cameras.
Bob Ferguson
"Philip K" <Phi...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:rhj9i59ni40tl2cnn...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:29:32 +0000 (UTC), sharon <nos...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Can anyone help on how speed cameras work? I got flashed today but I
>>think there was only 1 flash, I thought 2 are needed for a valid
>>prosecution??
>
> No flashes needed for a valid prosecution. You don't even need a
> photograph - the opinion of a serving police office will normally be
> sufficient.
>
No. It requires the *opinion* of *two* police officers for a prosecution.
One police officer requires an observation of a reading from a type approved
speed measuring device.
> Different technologies flash different numbers of times - Gatso twice,
> Truevelo once, Specs none.
>
Correct.
Gary Baldi
wrote:
>
> I myself am still waiting to see if I get a NIP having been flashed by a
> camera in a 50 mph limit. The GPS track data clearly shows that I passed
>
> - Show quoted text -
Except 46mph to a camera that's been set to flash at 40mph+10%+2mph
(i.e 46mph) AND has been calibrated to flash at 600ms instead of 500ms
will "prove" you were travelling at 55.2mph.
And the markings in the road will back those calculations up.
(Of course, they don't tell you the camera is calibrated to flash at
600ms instead of 500ms).
Adrian
were saying:
> (Of course, they don't tell you the camera is calibrated to flash at
> 600ms instead of 500ms).
No, but the timestamps on the photos will.
Gary Baldi
>
> No, but the timestamps on the photos will.
Well you'd think so, wouldn't you?
Google David Edgar; if the flash interval was so transparently
available to all and sundry, I wonder why he managed to rattle so many
Establishment cages?
Adrian
were saying:
>> No, but the timestamps on the photos will.
> Well you'd think so, wouldn't you?
>
> Google David Edgar; if the flash interval was so transparently available
> to all and sundry
Well, to "all and sundry" with the photos in their hands, which he didn't
seem to have.
> I wonder why he managed to rattle so many Establishment cages?
Did he? I don't find very much on a quick google except for reports of
his own press releases. He certainly doesn't appear to have "rattled" the
type approval of Gatsos.
allanbonnetracy
>
> I know people who have been flashed at 37 in a 30 so it aint worth the
> risk especially at the lower speeds. There are some major roads into
> and out of towns that they deliberately reduce the speed limit from 50
> or 40 to lower speeds to catch people out and generate revenue and
> profits. I have nothing against 20 zones near school and 30 on minor
> roads in residential areas but a lot of it is getting ridiculous now.
>
Yeah yeah.
Have you ever thought the locals might have asked for a camera and, as
they all have votes, they tend to get listened to.
Everyone thinks they should be allowed to speed everywhere except when
it's where they live then they're soon signing the petitions.
Gary Baldi
wrote:
>
> Everyone thinks they should be allowed to speed everywhere except when
> it's where they live then they're soon signing the petitions.
So do you believe 95mph on the M25 at 2a.m on a Sunday is safer than
27mph outside a comprehensive school at 3.35p.m on a Monday?
sharon
Thanks for all the replies :)
Guess its not looking good but have to wait and see... :~
Actually I only have 3 points for speeding, also had 6 points for not
stopping after an accidence (very harsh... long story :)). I did a speed
awareness coures in September so dont know if I could do that again.
The camera is really near our house. I know from my friend that its set
to 40, so normally I go through it around 40 and never had a problem.
Maybe on Saturday I was a tiny bit faster and thats what did it, or maybe
a problem with the camera. I was definitely doing less than 45, so seems
very harsh to trigger for a couple of mph :( Grrr.
xx
Pedt said...
Mick Hunt
"martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4b241bd3$0$2488$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Has the OP admitted that there 9 points come from Speeding,
Why the fuck dont kids just look where there going, why is it always
**kids**, you seem to sound like its fine to knock a old black man over but
not a kid ??
Farmer Giles
"sharon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:hg620i$t85$1...@aioe.org...
> Hi
>
> Thanks for all the replies :)
>
> Guess its not looking good but have to wait and see... :~
>
> Actually I only have 3 points for speeding, also had 6 points for not
> stopping after an accidence (very harsh... long story :)). I did a speed
> awareness coures in September so dont know if I could do that again.
No you can't.
> The camera is really near our house. I know from my friend that its set
> to 40, so normally I go through it around 40 and never had a problem.
> Maybe on Saturday I was a tiny bit faster and thats what did it, or maybe
> a problem with the camera. I was definitely doing less than 45, so seems
> very harsh to trigger for a couple of mph :( Grrr.
As I said in my earlier post, I've just got a ticket for 35 in a 30 area -
downhill on a country road with no houses nearby. As I drive a lot, and have
had a clean licence for over 35 years, I think that is very harsh. I wrote
complaining about the unfair positioning of the camera, and the small margin
of 'excess' speed, and did not even get the courtesy of a reply.
Adrian
saying:
> Actually I only have 3 points for speeding, also had 6 points for not
> stopping after an accidence (very harsh... long story :)).
<holds head in hands>
And you think that's BETTER?
> I did a speed awareness coures in September
I can only presume that was before you got one of the other sets of
points, because I doubt they'd send somebody with nine points on a speed-
awareness course.
> so dont know if I could do that again.
G'wan, take a guess...
> The camera is really near our house.
So no excuse whatsoever. You knew it was there.
> I know from my friend that its set to 40, so normally I go through it
> around 40 and never had a problem.
<gibber>
> Maybe on Saturday I was a tiny bit faster and thats what did it, or
> maybe a problem with the camera. I was definitely doing less than 45, so
> seems very harsh to trigger for a couple of mph :( Grrr.
Umm, 45mph is 50% over the legal limit, y'know...
martin
> Hi
>
> Thanks for all the replies :)
>
> Guess its not looking good but have to wait and see... :~
>
> Actually I only have 3 points for speeding, also had 6 points for not
> stopping after an accidence (very harsh... long story :)). I did a speed
> awareness coures in September so dont know if I could do that again.
One would hope not.
> The camera is really near our house. I know from my friend that its set
> to 40, so normally I go through it around 40 and never had a problem.
As a self-confessed habitual speeder in an area where you know what the
speed limit is and deliberately choose to drive 10mph over in a built up
area. I hope you're banned.
Just my 2p worth you understand.
Norman Wells
> Hi
>
> Thanks for all the replies :)
>
> Guess its not looking good but have to wait and see... :~
>
> Actually I only have 3 points for speeding, also had 6 points for not
> stopping after an accidence (very harsh... long story :)). I did a
> speed awareness coures in September
Did it work?
Pedt
sharon <nos...@nospam.com> wibbled
>Hi
>
>Thanks for all the replies :)
>
>Guess its not looking good but have to wait and see... :~
>
>Actually I only have 3 points for speeding, also had 6 points for not
>stopping after an accidence (very harsh... long story :)).
Personally I think you were lucky to only get 6 points for failing to
stop after an accident. My flabber is somewhat ghasted that you think
that is 'very harsh'.
>I did a speed
>awareness coures in September so dont know if I could do that again.
My understanding is that you only get the chance to do a speed awareness
course once.
>
>The camera is really near our house. I know from my friend that its set
>to 40, so normally I go through it around 40 and never had a problem.
>Maybe on Saturday I was a tiny bit faster and thats what did it, or maybe
>a problem with the camera. I was definitely doing less than 45, so seems
>very harsh to trigger for a couple of mph :( Grrr.
Do you actually realise how you are coming over here?
Take a hint: Don't suggest to the magistrates in your defence that you
usually do 33% over the speed limit as you haven't been caught for that
so you don't think you should get done for a bit more as it's only an
mph or so higher - unless you want to give them the giggles backstage.
--
Pedt
Bob Ferguson
"Gary Baldi" <tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ddb8cf79-6c99-44b3...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
--------------
Didn't actually succeed in doing so as he conveniently died the night before
he was due to present his evidence in court (while the police were visiting
his home).
Bob Ferguson
> Gary Baldi <tim.ri...@gmx.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>> No, but the timestamps on the photos will.
>
>> Well you'd think so, wouldn't you?
>>
>> Google David Edgar; if the flash interval was so transparently available
>> to all and sundry
>
> Well, to "all and sundry" with the photos in their hands, which he didn't
> seem to have.
>
David Edgar *did* have the photos. That's what started him off on his
quest.
>> I wonder why he managed to rattle so many Establishment cages?
>
> Did he? I don't find very much on a quick google except for reports of
> his own press releases. He certainly doesn't appear to have "rattled" the
> type approval of Gatsos.
No - because he died the night before he was due to defend his speeding
charge.
Bob Ferguson
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>> Google David Edgar; if the flash interval was so transparently
>> available to all and sundry, I wonder why he managed to rattle so many
>> Establishment cages?
> Didn't actually succeed in doing so as he conveniently died the night
> before he was due to present his evidence in court (while the police
> were visiting his home).
That's not _quite_ what a google suggests.
http://www.properpolicing.org.uk/articles/David%20Edgar%20arrested!.pdf
is the only thing I can find that even mentions his death - and that's
not even certain he is dead, just that he might be, and that an arrest
might have contributed - then attempts to draw parallels with David
Kelly, ffs...
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>>> Google David Edgar; if the flash interval was so transparently
>>> available to all and sundry
>> Well, to "all and sundry" with the photos in their hands, which he
>> didn't seem to have.
> David Edgar *did* have the photos. That's what started him off on his
> quest.
He had one set of photos. He appears to have then timed a camera flashing
a load of other vehicles. Does he have all those photos?
Oh, look - a quick google reveals that Edgar wasn't even being prosecuted
for speeding but for failure to identify the driver...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=149077
Col Colt
news:ko08i51rnvdto94gf...@4ax.com...
>
> I got flashed in Scotland last year and it was only one flash. I
> thought it was a 70mph limit on that particular road. The ticket said
> I was doing 78 in a 60. So even if it had of been a 70 their gadget
> said I was going faster even if my speedo was 70. I got 3pts and �60
> fine.
>
Your speedo was saying 70 but they recorded your speed as 78?!? Either your
speedo was out or their calibration was.
Adrian
were saying:
>> I got flashed in Scotland last year and it was only one flash. I
>> thought it was a 70mph limit on that particular road. The ticket said I
>> was doing 78 in a 60. So even if it had of been a 70 their gadget said
>> I was going faster even if my speedo was 70. I got 3pts and £60 fine.
> Your speedo was saying 70 but they recorded your speed as 78?!? Either
> your speedo was out or their calibration was.
Occam's Razor suggests that the OP really was doing 78, indicated 80ish,
thinking he'd got plenty of margin since it was a 70 limit - and didn't
notice the first flash.
Col Colt
> "Jack Rabbitt" <a...@b.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> If its a 30 mph limit, you get 30 + 10% + 2 leway, so basically anything
>> over 36mph is liable for a ticket.
>
> That's a "guideline". It's perfectly legitimate for a ticket to be issued
> for 31 in a 30.
>
Yes, but unless there were 'aggravating factors', such as going past a
school at chucking out time, they'd look pretty foolish for issuing a NIP
for such a small amount of excess speed. I habitually obey the speed limit
and only go over it in moments of inattention and because I may think the
limit is higher than it is, and for me, that's pretty rare. If I received a
NIP for 31 I would certainly challenge it and I would spend good money on a
lawyer to represent me. And I have zero points on my licence and have never
had any points on it. My clean licence is worth enough to spend money to
clear my name.
Col Colt
70, which makes me feel comfortable going at '75' according to my speedo on
a motorway
Adrian
were saying:
>>> Your speedo was saying 70 but they recorded your speed as 78?!?
>>> Either your speedo was out or their calibration was.
>> Occam's Razor suggests that the OP really was doing 78, indicated
>> 80ish, thinking he'd got plenty of margin since it was a 70 limit - and
>> didn't notice the first flash.
> I would hope so as I always thought that speedos overread at by a few
> mph at 70, which makes me feel comfortable going at '75' according to my
> speedo on a motorway
The Construction & Use/Type Approval calibration requirements for speedos
meant they're not allowed to under-read, but they can over-read by a
smallish margin. In practice, they're only ever checked at Type Approval
time - so individual cars are never checked - although the accuracy
available through modern electronic speedos means individual variances
are minimal. They're usually set for standard-sized & branded tyres to be
about midway through the calibration range, so a couple of mph fast at 70
would be normal.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, the conditions are far more important
than the absolute number. If the conditions allow it, I'm quite happy to
sit at 95 or more. <shrug>
Since none of us were in the car with the OP, we don't know what
conditions were like. 80 may well have been appropriate, but for the
presence of a large dayglo yellow box. The OP either thought an indicated
80 would be fine (risky), or just plain didn't see the box.
Adrian
were saying:
> If I received a NIP for 31 I would certainly challenge it and I
> would spend good money on a lawyer to represent me.
<shrug> Your call. You might be lucky, but if it did come to court, you'd
almost certainly end up with a larger bill than you needed to - and more
points, too.
> My clean licence is worth enough to spend money to clear my name.
So where do you place the sentimental value of no points? It's irrelevant
in any real-world terms. Very few insurers will apply any kind of loading
for a single fixed penalty SP30.
Col Colt
> "Col Colt" <col...@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> If I received a NIP for 31 I would certainly challenge it and I
>> would spend good money on a lawyer to represent me.
>
> <shrug> Your call. You might be lucky, but if it did come to court, you'd
> almost certainly end up with a larger bill than you needed to - and more
> points, too.
>
prosecution for going 31 in a 30 zone? In the unlikely event of a NIP being
issued, they would back off if it were challenged. They would make
themselves look ridiculous if it came to court and end up being castigated
by the magistrate for wasting the court's time. As so often happens when
these kinds of trivial things come before the courts.
>> My clean licence is worth enough to spend money to clear my name.
>
> So where do you place the sentimental value of no points? It's irrelevant
> in any real-world terms. Very few insurers will apply any kind of loading
> for a single fixed penalty SP30.
>
It is not a question of sentimentality. I am proud that I do not have a
criminal record. And yes, a speeding conviction is a criminal conviction.
Col Colt
>
> Meanwhile, here in the real world, the conditions are far more important
> than the absolute number. If the conditions allow it, I'm quite happy to
> sit at 95 or more. <shrug>
>
Adrian
were saying:
>>> If I received a NIP for 31 I would certainly challenge it and I would
>>> spend good money on a lawyer to represent me.
>> <shrug> Your call. You might be lucky, but if it did come to court,
>> you'd almost certainly end up with a larger bill than you needed to -
>> and more points, too.
> But it is highly likely that wouldn't come to court. Have you ever seen
> a prosecution for going 31 in a 30 zone? In the unlikely event of a NIP
> being issued, they would back off if it were challenged.
Indeed. Because the backlog of cases is so long. Like I said - you may
well be lucky.
>>> My clean licence is worth enough to spend money to clear my name.
>> So where do you place the sentimental value of no points? It's
>> irrelevant in any real-world terms. Very few insurers will apply any
>> kind of loading for a single fixed penalty SP30.
> It is not a question of sentimentality. I am proud that I do not have a
> criminal record.
Like I said. Sentimental value. There is no tangible difference.
> And yes, a speeding conviction is a criminal conviction.
Oh, and you may wish to look up what counts as a recordable offence. A
speeding ticket doesn't.
Why I Like BT
>
> I shouldn't have been flashed - I know from a friend of mine whos married
> to a copper that it's set at 40 (limit is 30)... my speedo was reading
> about 40-45, so with overread I should have been ok?!?!
>
> I really hope it's going to be ok, I already have 9 points and a ban is
> not what I want for Xmas :(
>
>
I assume that this is a troll. If it isn't then you deserve the ban you
will ultimately get.
Col Colt
>
> Indeed. Because the backlog of cases is so long. Like I said - you may
> well be lucky.
>
excess speed would bring the law into disrepute. Besides which, I am sure
that sufficient doubt could be cast on the accuracy of the speed detector to
measure +/- 1mph. Which is one of the reasons why there are guidelines in
the first place.
> Like I said. Sentimental value. There is no tangible difference.
>
Yes there is. Security vetting requires all offences to be admitted, even
speeding offences.
>> And yes, a speeding conviction is a criminal conviction.
>
> Oh, and you may wish to look up what counts as a recordable offence. A
> speeding ticket doesn't.
>
So what? It will still show up on an enhanced CRB check and may be used
against you.
Why I Like BT
>
>
> I did a speed
> awareness coures in September so dont know if I could do that again.
>
>
So you're either brain-dead or the course is rubbish.
Adrian
were saying:
>> Indeed. Because the backlog of cases is so long. Like I said - you may
>> well be lucky.
> It's more than just the backlog. A prosecution for a trivial amount of
> excess speed would bring the law into disrepute. Besides which, I am
> sure that sufficient doubt could be cast on the accuracy of the speed
> detector to measure +/- 1mph. Which is one of the reasons why there are
> guidelines in the first place.
>> Like I said. Sentimental value. There is no tangible difference.
> Yes there is. Security vetting requires all offences to be admitted,
> even speeding offences.
Even if it did, which I doubt, it will make no difference to the result
of the vetting.
>>> And yes, a speeding conviction is a criminal conviction.
>> Oh, and you may wish to look up what counts as a recordable offence. A
>> speeding ticket doesn't.
> So what? It will still show up on an enhanced CRB check and may be used
> against you.
I very much doubt it.
Bob Ferguson
That is a particularly old story. If that was the case then why did the
police go to so much trouble to relieve Edgar of his 'Notso' timing device
and all the evidence that was 'irrelevant' to the actual charge?
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>> Oh, look - a quick google reveals that Edgar wasn't even being
>> prosecuted for speeding but for failure to identify the driver...
>> http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=149077
> That is a particularly old story. If that was the case then why did the
> police go to so much trouble to relieve Edgar of his 'Notso' timing
> device and all the evidence that was 'irrelevant' to the actual charge?
<awaits link to back any of these wild claims up>
Chris Lewis
"Col Colt" <col...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:esmdnanMrsT...@giganews.com...
> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7opaqmF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Indeed. Because the backlog of cases is so long. Like I said - you may
>> well be lucky.
>>
> It's more than just the backlog. A prosecution for a trivial amount of
> excess speed would bring the law into disrepute. Besides which, I am sure
> that sufficient doubt could be cast on the accuracy of the speed detector
> to measure +/- 1mph. Which is one of the reasons why there are guidelines
> in the first place.
>
>> Like I said. Sentimental value. There is no tangible difference.
>>
> Yes there is. Security vetting requires all offences to be admitted, even
> speeding offences.
Erm no it doesn't. The security form I last filled in (which granted was a
couple of years ago now) asks the following question.
Have you ever been:
a. convicted or found guilty by a Court (including juvenile courts) of
ANY offence in ANY country (excluding parking and speeding, but including
all
other motoring offences even where a spot fine has been administered by the
police)?
b. on probation, or received a formal caution, or been
absolutely/conditionally
discharged, or accepted a fiscal fine from the Procurator Fiscal in
Scotland,
or been bound over after being charged with any offence, or is there any
action pending against you?
c. convicted by a Court Martial, or sentenced to detention or dismissal or
fined
while serving in the armed forces of the UK or any Commonwealth or foreign
country?
So speeding does not need to be disclosed for an MoD security (when using
Form 1109 if its relevant)
Chris
Bob Ferguson
The Internet and the media were fairly full of the story of David Edgar
right up to the night before he was due to appear in court. Then - nothing.
For some time the mystery remained. there was no mention of his court
appearance in his local paper or anything. It seems someone trying to find
out what happened turned up his obituary and he did die the night before the
court appearance was due to occur. He died in hospital of a heart attack.
The hospital admission records show that he arrived by police car, but the
police claimed that they were nowhere near Edgar at any time that evening.
The photographs in your link above were apparently found when Edgar's family
were approached regarding Edgar's 'Notso' gadget (which was never found
along with all the evidence he was due to present to the court). It
transpired that the electronic enthusiast had wired his home with CCTV and
the disc from the fatal evening was found still in the recorder. Those
pictures were from the video recorded.
How much of the content of that article is theory or speculation is anyone's
guess, but given the police denial of what was subsequently proven can't
help but make you wonder.
Bob Ferguson
> "Bob Ferguson" <robert....@google.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>>> Google David Edgar; if the flash interval was so transparently
>>>> available to all and sundry
>
>>> Well, to "all and sundry" with the photos in their hands, which he
>>> didn't seem to have.
>
>> David Edgar *did* have the photos. That's what started him off on his
>> quest.
>
> He had one set of photos. He appears to have then timed a camera flashing
> a load of other vehicles. Does he have all those photos?
>
His 'notso' gadget apparently tripped the camera as well as timed the
interval between the flashes. Construction of such a gadget is a relatively
trivial task to an electronics enthusiast of even moderate capability.
> Oh, look - a quick google reveals that Edgar wasn't even being prosecuted
> for speeding but for failure to identify the driver...
> http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=149077
This is surely irrelevant. In order to secure a conviction for failing to
identify the driver of a vehicle, the prosecution must surely have to prove
that an offence took place in the first place giving rise to the requirement
of the registered keeper to so identify the driver. If the defence can
prove that no such offence took place then ergo there is no lawful
requirement to identify the driver.
Bob Ferguson
"allanbonnetracy" <allanbo...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:0b8826a8-949b-4540...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> >
>>
>> I know people who have been flashed at 37 in a 30 so it aint worth the
>> risk especially at the lower speeds. There are some major roads into
>> and out of towns that they deliberately reduce the speed limit from 50
>> or 40 to lower speeds to catch people out and generate revenue and
>> profits. I have nothing against 20 zones near school and 30 on minor
>> roads in residential areas but a lot of it is getting ridiculous now.
>>
>
> Yeah yeah.
>
> Have you ever thought the locals might have asked for a camera and, as
> they all have votes, they tend to get listened to.
>
Cameras cannot be installed that way. There are 4 criteria that have to be
met before any speed camera can be installed.
Bob Ferguson
The ACPO guidelines suggest that the camera should be set to not less than
80. But then it is only a guideline.
Bob Ferguson
"Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
news:RPyVm.23957$wc4....@newsfe20.ams2...
> sharon wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks for all the replies :)
>>
>> Guess its not looking good but have to wait and see... :~
>>
>> Actually I only have 3 points for speeding, also had 6 points for not
>> stopping after an accidence (very harsh... long story :)). I did a
>> speed awareness coures in September
>
>
He's been aware of everone speeding ever since so it must have done. ;-)
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>>> I got flashed in Scotland last year and it was only one flash. I
>>> thought it was a 70mph limit on that particular road. The ticket said
>>> I was doing 78 in a 60. So even if it had of been a 70 their gadget
>>> said I was going faster even if my speedo was 70. I got 3pts and £60
>>> fine.
>> Your speedo was saying 70 but they recorded your speed as 78?!? Either
>> your speedo was out or their calibration was.
> The ACPO guidelines suggest that the camera should be set to not less
> than 80. But then it is only a guideline.
In a 60?
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>> Oh, look - a quick google reveals that Edgar wasn't even being
>> prosecuted for speeding but for failure to identify the driver...
>> http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=149077
> This is surely irrelevant.
Nope.
> In order to secure a conviction for failing to identify the driver of a
> vehicle, the prosecution must surely have to prove that an offence took
> place in the first place giving rise to the requirement of the
> registered keeper to so identify the driver.
Nope.
So long as there's an allegation of an offence, that's all that matters.
The allegation isn't tested and proven or rejected until considerably
later in the process.
Adrian
much like they were saying:
> How much of the content of that article is theory or speculation is
> anyone's guess, but given the police denial of what was subsequently
> proven can't help but make you wonder.
Mmm. MI5 were quite probably involved.
<rolls eyes>
Col Colt
news:4b278278$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>
> His 'notso' gadget apparently tripped the camera as well as timed the
> interval between the flashes. Construction of such a gadget is a
> relatively trivial task to an electronics enthusiast of even moderate
> capability.
>
test some speed cameras? How about you, for example?
Bob Ferguson
They were posted around a month ago when thus matter was aired then.
Bob Ferguson
I could do so if I wanted to. But speed cameras have caused me no problem
so far, so I don't want to.
But don't let me stop you.
Bob Ferguson
You may chose to think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Bob Ferguson
Yup. I thought it was a 70 for some obscure reason.
I shall rephrase my post - by withdrawing it.
Bob Ferguson
>> "Jack Rabbitt" <a...@b.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>> If its a 30 mph limit, you get 30 + 10% + 2 leway, so basically anything
>>> over 36mph is liable for a ticket.
>>
>> That's a "guideline". It's perfectly legitimate for a ticket to be issued
>> for 31 in a 30.
>>
> Yes, but unless there were 'aggravating factors', such as going past a
> school at chucking out time, they'd look pretty foolish for issuing a NIP
> for such a small amount of excess speed. I habitually obey the speed
> limit and only go over it in moments of inattention and because I may
> think the limit is higher than it is, and for me, that's pretty rare. If
> licence and have never had any points on it. My clean licence is worth
and you would fail. 31 is greater than 30 (even for very small values of
31).
Bob Ferguson
You mean - it's recorded.
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>>>> Oh, look - a quick google reveals that Edgar wasn't even being
>>>> prosecuted for speeding but for failure to identify the driver...
>>>> http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=149077
>>> That is a particularly old story. If that was the case then why did
>>> the police go to so much trouble to relieve Edgar of his 'Notso'
>>> timing device and all the evidence that was 'irrelevant' to the actual
>>> charge?
>> <awaits link to back any of these wild claims up>
> They were posted around a month ago when thus matter was aired then.
That'll be a "No".
Bob Ferguson
> "Col Colt" <col...@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>> Indeed. Because the backlog of cases is so long. Like I said - you may
>>> well be lucky.
>
>> It's more than just the backlog. A prosecution for a trivial amount of
>> excess speed would bring the law into disrepute. Besides which, I am
>> sure that sufficient doubt could be cast on the accuracy of the speed
>> detector to measure +/- 1mph. Which is one of the reasons why there are
>> guidelines in the first place.
>
>>> Like I said. Sentimental value. There is no tangible difference.
>
>> Yes there is. Security vetting requires all offences to be admitted,
>> even speeding offences.
>
> Even if it did, which I doubt, it will make no difference to the result
> of the vetting.
>
Doubt away - but it does. the form is very specific on the point.
>>>> And yes, a speeding conviction is a criminal conviction.
>
>>> Oh, and you may wish to look up what counts as a recordable offence. A
>>> speeding ticket doesn't.
>
>> So what? It will still show up on an enhanced CRB check and may be used
>> against you.
>
> I very much doubt it.
Doubt away, but it does.
Bob Ferguson
"Chris Lewis" <nos...@forme.thanks> wrote in message
news:4b277e36$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
S'funny. My form (3 years ago admittedly) is different to yours and
requires disclosure of all motoring convictions except parking offences.
Cynic
<robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>> Yes, but unless there were 'aggravating factors', such as going past a
>> school at chucking out time, they'd look pretty foolish for issuing a NIP
>> for such a small amount of excess speed. I habitually obey the speed
>> limit and only go over it in moments of inattention and because I may
>> think the limit is higher than it is, and for me, that's pretty rare. If
>> I received a NIP for 31 I would certainly challenge it and I would spend
>> good money on a lawyer to represent me. And I have zero points on my
>> licence and have never had any points on it. My clean licence is worth
>> enough to spend money to clear my name.
>and you would fail. 31 is greater than 30 (even for very small values of
>31).
*Proving beyond reasonable doubt* that you were doing 31 rather than
30 is however more difficult than when the speed transgression is far
greater.
--
Cynic
jeff
>
>>>>> And yes, a speeding conviction is a criminal conviction.
>>>> Oh, and you may wish to look up what counts as a recordable offence. A
>>>> speeding ticket doesn't.
>>> So what? It will still show up on an enhanced CRB check and may be used
>>> against you.
>> I very much doubt it.
>
> Doubt away, but it does.
Oh! no they don't.
Well at least not on my Enhanced CRB check!
Jeff
Mr X
. It seems someone trying to find
> out what happened turned up his obituary and he did die the night before
> the court appearance was due to occur. He died in hospital of a heart
> attack. The hospital admission records show that he arrived by police car,
> but the police claimed that they were nowhere near Edgar at any time that
> evening.
>
Steve Firth
> Mmm. MI5 were quite probably involved.
Damn, now I have to kill you.
Steve Firth
> >
> > Oh, and you may wish to look up what counts as a recordable offence. A
> > speeding ticket doesn't.
> >
> So what? It will still show up on an enhanced CRB check and may be used
> against you.
<Cough>obblers. It doesn't even count against one when undergoing DV
clearance.
Steve Firth
>
> Always ask to see the 'evidence', if you only get a single picture, ask how
> are you going to confirm the alleged speed.
>
> Do not accept the NIP unless they can prove without doubt that you have
> exceeded the speed limit.
And bear in mind that "Alan Holmes" has been caught out posing as an
expert of speeding offences in the past. However when challenged his
"foolproof" method of "fighting" speeding tickets turned out to be
"ignore them and hope they go away".
Oh, and don't forget that when Holmes claimed to be able to challenge
any speeding ticket on technical grounds he then ran to
uk.legal.moderated to ask for advice about how speed cameras work.
Steve Firth
> *Proving beyond reasonable doubt* that you were doing 31 rather than
> 30 is however more difficult than when the speed transgression is far
> greater.
Umm no. Even quite crap speed measuring devices can better an accuracy
of 1 part in 31.
Bob Ferguson
That will be an 'already posted'.
Bob Ferguson
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hg8r28$fj3$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
But not in this case as there is CCTV evidence of the police bundling an
obviously unconcious Edgar into a police car less than half an hour earlier.
Bob Ferguson
"jeff" <je...@local.host> wrote in message news:hg8ejb$52h$1...@aioe.org...
Can't speak for your CRB check. We are talking about security clearance for
the purposes of access to material subject to the Official Secrets Acts.
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>>>>> That is a particularly old story. If that was the case then why did
>>>>> the police go to so much trouble to relieve Edgar of his 'Notso'
>>>>> timing device and all the evidence that was 'irrelevant' to the
>>>>> actual charge?
>>>> <awaits link to back any of these wild claims up>
>>> They were posted around a month ago when thus matter was aired then.
>> That'll be a "No".
> That will be an 'already posted'.
A messageID won't be a problem, then?
Bob Ferguson
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3kcfi5t9pevvb23ks...@4ax.com...
Why? The ability to measure speed to an accuracy of far greater than 0.1
mph is relatively trivial.
Bob Ferguson
"Why I Like BT" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:4b27780d$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "sharon" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:hg620i$t85$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>>
>> I did a speed awareness coures in September so dont know if I could do
>> that again.
>>
>>
>
> So you're either brain-dead or the course is rubbish.
Neither. You can only do the course once.
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>>>>>> Oh, and you may wish to look up what counts as a recordable
>>>>>> offence. A speeding ticket doesn't.
>>>>> So what? It will still show up on an enhanced CRB check and may be
>>>>> used against you.
>>>> I very much doubt it.
>>> Doubt away, but it does.
>> Oh! no they don't.
>>
>> Well at least not on my Enhanced CRB check!
> Can't speak for your CRB check. We are talking about security clearance
> for the purposes of access to material subject to the Official Secrets
> Acts.
<cough> Did you see the mention in another post of DV clearance? Do you
know what DV clearance is?
By the way - do you know how an Enhanced CRB check works? A basic CRB
gives the details from the PNC of any recordable offences. An enhanced
CRB gives those details plus anything else held by the Police which the
Chief Constable _feels is relevant_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Records_Bureau#Enhanced_disclosure
Why I Like BT
So you missed my point. A person takes a speed awareness test and then gets
caught blatantly doing 40 on a 30 limit because they think the camera won't
detect them. IMO that person is either incredibly stupid or else the course
is rubbish. My mistake, I thought that people would read my comment in
context. Oh wait - it would appear that everyone else did since no-one else
posted a point-missing comment.
Cynic
But proving *beyond reasonable doubt* that you have achieved a 4%
accuracy *in retrospect* in a particular real-World case is not
trivial. Any number of perfectly plausible errors could accumulate
into a greater margin of error on most speed enforcement measuring
devices.
In two-photo methods such as gatsos, there may be an error in the time
between the photographs introduced not only by the clock mechanism,
but also in the delay between the shutter signal and the actual taking
of the photo. The time interval is usually around half a second. The
difference in distance between a car travelling at 30MPH and one
travelling at 31MPH over that half second is about 9 inches. I'm not
sure how easy it would be to determine the car's position on the road
to within a 4.5 inch accuracy on each gatso photo.
Ther are no open-road radar speed measuring devices that could be
relied upon to have less than a 4% margin of error because of the
possibility of false signals introduced by reflections from other
vehicles and road furniture. Hand-held speed measuring devices are
even less accurate because of the possibility of movement of the
device itself.
--
Cynic
Bob Ferguson
Why should I waste my time searching for it when you do so just as easily?
Bob Ferguson
So can therefore include speeding convictions.
What's your point?
Bob Ferguson
The generation of the time base to trip the two photographs can easily be
generated to accuracies of better than a few parts per million. Any time
delay in the process of taking a photograph is completely irrelevent as it
will be more or less exactly the same for both photographs (and hence
cancel). Thus if the timer issues a signal to take photographs at 500ms +/-
.000001% (easily achieved), then both photographs will be very very close to
500ms apart even if the delay in the shutter mechanism is as much as 400ms
(and that would have to be a very badly designed mechanism).
A policeman would have to have a very shaky hand indeed if he moved a hand
held device by as much as 0.1 mph (that's nearly *two* inches per second).
Bob Ferguson
Maybe because you snipped the context from your post. leaving your response
to a question about whether someone can do the course twice with no further
clues.
If you want people to read your comment in context, then don't remove the
context. Not all servers show the entire post history. My server (over
which I have no control) frequently drops posts. Your response is shown
immediately under a poster called Pedt who never mentioned speed awareness
courses. Whilst I gathered that a post was probably missing, even I cannot
possibly begin to even speculate as to what it actually said.
Why I Like BT
>
>
> If you want people to read your comment in context, then don't remove the
> context. Not all servers show the entire post history. My server (over
> which I have no control) frequently drops posts. Your response is shown
> immediately under a poster called Pedt who never mentioned speed awareness
> courses. Whilst I gathered that a post was probably missing, even I
> cannot possibly begin to even speculate as to what it actually said.
>
>
If you use a defective, malfunctioning and/or substandard server which
"frequently drops posts" then it's up to you to assume that a snipped
posting *to someone else* might have "missing" context. I'm not going to
quote reams of text in a response to compensate for your dodgy server just
in case *you* happen to read it, sorry.
I seem to remember that you had a similar argument with someone else quite
recently. One might infer from this that you are the common denominator ...
or should the whole world shift slightly to align with you?
And what has being "shown immediately under a poster called Pedt" got to do
with anything? I was responding to "sharon", anyone else above or below is
irrelevant! You're using OE according to the message properties so you
can't blame a web-based reader.
jeff
>> By the way - do you know how an Enhanced CRB check works? A basic CRB
>> gives the details from the PNC of any recordable offences. An enhanced
>> CRB gives those details plus anything else held by the Police which the
>> Chief Constable _feels is relevant_.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Records_Bureau#Enhanced_disclosure
>
> So can therefore include speeding convictions.
>
> What's your point?
>
My point is that you were the one that said that speeding convictions
WERE included (not could be) in an enhanced CRB check.
Jeff
Ian
The last sentence of
http://www.driver-improvement.co.uk/index.php/home/speed-awareness-scheme
indicates that you can do it again after 3 years has passed.
--
Please visit our appeal at
http://www.donatetobreastcancer.org/nakedbikeride
Thanks
Ian