M11 Gatso - How can they miss it?
Graham
impossible not know its there unless you are actually asleep or dead. There
are speed camera warnings hundreds of feet before you reach it and huge, and
I mean massive, like 20 feet across signs with 50 stamped on them. I just
wish they would tear up their licences on the spot as if they miss this,
they must have such poor observation as to be dangerous. That camera is
painted bright yellow and is on a dead straight section of road (you can see
it half a mile away), so even without the advance warnings, its very
difficult to miss. Obviously, detest most speed cameras, but this one is
very sensibly placed. Just as the M11 ends and is about to join with the
slower North circ and A12 traffic.
Please don't reply unless you actually drive this stetch of road as you will
be talking out of your arse.
Graham
http://www.thenewspaper.com:80/news/23/2310.asp
UK: Top Speed Camera Trap Caught Tricking Motorists at Night
The most profitable UK speed camera issued $26 million in tickets at night
when a speed limit change warning sign was completely unlit.
The UK's most profitable speed camera that has been sending £60 (US $120)
tickets to vehicle owners at the rate of 2000 per day may now be forced to
issue refunds. The device, located on the southbound M11 at Woodford, Essex
is situated at the point where the speed limit suddenly drops from 70 MPH to
50 MPH. Last month motorist Simon Grills forced the Crown Prosecution
Service to drop his speed camera ticket after he proved the signs warning of
the speed change were effectively invisible at night. Grills produced
evidence showing the lights meant to illuminate the signs had been burned
out since November 18, 2005. Grills had spent months fighting the ticket he
received in September 2006.
"When I got flashed I couldn't work out how I'd missed the sign," Grills
told the Sunday Mirror newspaper. "Then it clicked -- it's simply not
visible at night."
The Mirror estimated that since the bulbs burned out at least 214,000
drivers had been trapped by the camera at night, generating £13 million (US
$26 million) in revenue.
The speed camera in question has been the centre of controversy since it was
first installed, inspiring one group to take its disagreement outside the
courtroom. Captain Gatso, the leader of the anti-photo enforcement vigilante
organization known as Motorists Against Detection (MAD), cited the M11
camera as evidence that officials were engaging in "fleecing, not policing"
and proceeded to use a heavy truck to yank the device off of its mounting in
late 2002.
"We have spoken to numerous police officers and emergency service personnel
countrywide and they agree that the majority of speed cameras are sited for
revenue, not safety, and in a lot of cases they just impede general
progress," Captain Gatso said in a statement at the time.
JNugent
[posting order amended for greater intelligibility]
>I travel through this camera once every few weeks, day and night and
>its impossible not know its there unless you are actually asleep or
>dead. [snip more in same vein]
Did you not read what you posted and quoted?
The issue was not the visibility of the camera; it was the visibility of
the speed limit sign (at the point of change) at night.
A driver believing the limit to be 70mph and travelling at (say) 60mph,
might well think he was proceeding lawfully and be completely
unconcerned about the camera. That's the whole point of the story.
Graham
"JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:SKudnQSPH-nQPGba...@pipex.net...
You didn't take my advise as you obviously never travel along this road and
have therefore made an arse of yourself. Congratulations, its a rare honour
:-) The signs are so visable day or night they are impossible to miss. If
anyone misses them, illuminated or not, then they would miss 99% of other
traffic signs and lines on road etc. As I said they must be 20 feet across
with a GIANT 50 painted on them.
Graham
JNugent
"advice".
> as you obviously never travel along this road and
> have therefore made an arse of yourself. Congratulations, its a rare honour
> :-) The signs are so visable day or night they are impossible to miss.#
The court decided otherwise.
You lose.
> If
> anyone misses them, illuminated or not, then they would miss 99% of other
> traffic signs and lines on road etc.
Do drivers approach every traffic sign and "lines on road etc" at 70 mph?
> As I said they must be 20 feet across with a GIANT 50 painted on them.
> Graham
Tell the court. They don't agree with you, according to the story that
*you* posted.
How hard is it for the Highways Agency to replace blown lamps? Is the
country really that hard up?
Graham
"JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
AS always, uk.driving is full of the same old folk who avoid the main point
(how can anyone miss a sign 20 feet across plus advance warnings of camera
half a mile ahead) and select pedantic points that are nowt to do with the
point I was making.
Inteligent conversation pointless...Bye... group deleted again!
JNugent
Whatever point you were trying to make, it was very well-disguised.
Les Hemmings
>
> Tell the court. They don't agree with you, according to the story that
> *you* posted.
>
> How hard is it for the Highways Agency to replace blown lamps? Is the
> country really that hard up?
It was obviously more profitable not to change them...
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
That occurred to me just after I hit "send".
Alan Smith
Strangely enough I was on that section of road about a year ago had to
go somewhere in the shitty town. No idea how, but I missed them from the
middle lane, I was over taking an artic at the time which could account
for the N/S one as to the one in the middle I'm not sure. But being in a
strange place looking for road signs & not expecting it to drop from 70
to 50mph on a wide open 3 lanes with people going a lot faster than me.
As to you guestimate of the size of the signs I think your imagination
has got away with you.
Alan...
Elder
gra...@nospam.com says...
> a sign 20 feet across plus advance warnings of camera
>
a lamp that might be 20 feet accross illustrating a speed camera or a
speed limit.
It is the speed limit sign that is in discussion, not warning of the
camera.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Elder
>
Ho Noessssss, I haz been delted again. Sumbuddy PLZ Undeltes
Graculus
news:LIKdnT6OGNqzA2banZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@metronet...
>I travel through this camera once every few weeks, day and night and its
>impossible not know its there unless you are actually asleep or dead. There
>are speed camera warnings hundreds of feet before you reach it and huge,
>and I mean massive, like 20 feet across signs with 50 stamped on them. I
>just wish they would tear up their licences on the spot as if they miss
>this, they must have such poor observation as to be dangerous. That camera
>is painted bright yellow and is on a dead straight section of road (you can
>see it half a mile away), so even without the advance warnings, its very
>difficult to miss. Obviously, detest most speed cameras, but this one is
>very sensibly placed. Just as the M11 ends and is about to join with the
>slower North circ and A12 traffic.
>
> Please don't reply unless you actually drive this stetch of road as you
> will be talking out of your arse.
I shall reply, even though I don't know the road. I'm afraid that your
ranting has to be discounted, largely as you claim that the 50mph signs are
20 feet wide. That is clearly not the case. So if that part of your post is
made up fantasy, what can I conclude about the rest?
matt_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Graham" <gra...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:LIKdnT6OGNqzA2banZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@metronet...
>
> >impossible not know its there unless you are actually asleep or dead. There
> >and I mean massive, like 20 feet across signs with 50 stamped on them. I
> >just wish they would tear up their licences on the spot as if they miss
> >this, they must have such poor observation as to be dangerous. Thatcamera
> >is painted bright yellow and is on a dead straight section of road (you can
> >see it half a mile away), so even without the advance warnings, its very
> >very sensibly placed. Just as the M11 ends and is about to join with the
> >slower North circ and A12 traffic.
>
> > Please don't reply unless you actually drive this stetch of road as you
> > will be talking out of your arse.
>
> I shall reply, even though I don't know the road. I'm afraid that your
> ranting has to be discounted, largely as you claim that the 50mph signs are
> 20 feet wide. That is clearly not the case. So if that part of your post is
> made up fantasy, what can I conclude about the rest?
Some facts here. Gatso use wetfilm on a maximum 800 exposure roll.
It takes two pictures, = 400 offences per roll. So the film would
need changing 5 times in every 24 hour period. So is plod going to
come along every 4.8 hours and chane the role? Doubt it.
Robin
<matt_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd7da692-113b-4811...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>Some facts here. Gatso use wetfilm on a maximum 800 exposure roll.
>It takes two pictures, = 400 offences per roll. So the film would
>need changing 5 times in every 24 hour period. So is plod going to
>come along every 4.8 hours and chane the role? Doubt it.
Think again..
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/208808/no_escape_as_all_gatsos_go_digital.html
http://www.gatsometer.com/index.php?p=5496
matt_...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 10, 8:27 am, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Graham" <gra...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:LIKdnT6OGNqzA2banZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@metronet...
>
> > >I travel through thiscameraonce every few weeks, day and night and its
> > >impossible not know its there unless you are actually asleep or dead. There
> > >arespeedcamerawarnings hundreds of feet before you reach it and huge,
> > >and I mean massive, like 20 feet across signs with 50 stamped on them. I
> > >just wish they would tear up their licences on the spot as if they miss
> > >this, they must have such poor observation as to be dangerous. Thatcamera
> > >is painted bright yellow and is on a dead straight section of road (you can
> > >see it half a mile away), so even without the advance warnings, its very
> > >difficult to miss. Obviously, detest mostspeedcameras, but this one is
> > >slower North circ and A12 traffic.
>
> > > Please don't reply unless you actually drive this stetch of road as you
> > > will be talking out of your arse.
>
> > I shall reply, even though I don't know the road. I'm afraid that your
> > ranting has to be discounted, largely as you claim that the 50mph signs are
> > 20 feet wide. That is clearly not the case. So if that part of your post is
> > made up fantasy, what can I conclude about the rest?
>
> Some facts here. Gatso use wetfilm on a maximum 800 exposure roll.
> It takes two pictures, = 400 offences per roll. So the film would
> need changing 5 times in every 24 hour period. So is plod going to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well that killed that one off then....
Graham
Presumably you have no argument with my original post about "how Can They
Miss it?" else you would not be side tracked onto a pedantic point of how
big is big, when it comes to a 50 sign. Trust me they are BIG, HUGE,
MASSIVE, HUMONGOUS. Anyway, trying to use the argument that the speed limit
sign was not big enough would not do much for you defence in court. Th epoit
of my original post was if people don't see that camera after all the signs
and a VERY obvious camera (even at night) then they are really crap at
observation. How is it possible for any logical person to disagree with
that?
Graham
Steve Firth
> Th epoit of my original post was if people don't see that camera after all
> the signs and a VERY obvious camera (even at night) then they are really
> crap at observation. How is it possible for any logical person to disagree
> with that?
<sigh>
As has already been pointed out to you it's not an issue of not seeing
the camera. If one sees the camera and assumes that the speed limit is
still 70mph then there is a problem. If the reason that the speed limit
was not known to driver is that a speed restriction sign is missing,
illegal, poorly illuminated etc then there is a defence in law.
How is it possible for any logical person to fail to see that?
JNugent
> Th epoit
> of my original post was if people don't see that camera after all the signs
> and a VERY obvious camera (even at night) then they are really crap at
> observation. How is it possible for any logical person to disagree with
> that?
Only to the extent that if he has no reason to suppose that that the
limit is anything under 70 and he is driving at a speed of which a
normally-calibrated camera will take no notice, the average person will
be quite miffed to be told (after the event) that the limit was in fact 50.
matt_...@hotmail.com
> <matt_oak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fd7da692-113b-4811...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Some facts here. Gatso use wetfilm on a maximum 800 exposure roll.
> >It takes two pictures, = 400 offences per roll. So the film would
> >need changing 5 times in every 24 hour period. So is plod going to
> >come along every 4.8 hours and chane the role? Doubt it.
>
> Think again..
>
>
> http://www.gatsometer.com/index.php?p=5496
Okay, more facts. The Autoexpress article says that they are 'going
digital' not that they are digital. The digital version is not ACPO
or HO approved, so it is not yet used in the UK.
Steve Firth
> Okay, more facts. The Autoexpress article says that they are 'going
> digital' not that they are digital. The digital version is not ACPO
> or HO approved, so it is not yet used in the UK.
Bugger, my friends have been wasting their time plastering the motorways
with digital speed cams then.
Mike....
> But being in a
> strange place looking for road signs & not expecting it to drop from 70
> to 50mph on a wide open 3 lanes with people going a lot faster than me.
the thing is, however easy or hard it is, the authorities had not kept the
warnings fully in working order and it isnt a good idea to allow the
defence of "well, we painted a lot of other stuff so to hell with any legal
requirement" as it would be the thin edge of a wedge. But it is "odd" how
so many drivers can be doing 70 approaching the edge of one of the worlds 3
or 4 greatest cities (I say that for the burkes who think otherwise) which
implies there might just be hazards ahead and not be observant enough to
see an obvious full size gatso. But then R4 reported the use of Specs as
news this morning.........
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email
Mike....
> if people don't see that camera after all the signs
> and a VERY obvious camera (even at night) then they are really crap at
> observation. How is it possible for any logical person to disagree with
> that?
you can't.
JNugent
Mad Ken doesn't have any sabotage rights over the motorways, so it
doesn't seem all that "odd". It's a while since I drove right to the
sourhen end of the M1 at the NCR at Hendon, but IIRC, the limit was
always 70 right down to the terminus; similarly with the M40 and M20
(though they effectively end at the M25). The M11 is one of only three
trunk motorways that penetrate right through to the N/S Circular Road.
The M4 (the other one) has been narrowed down to two lanes nd no
shoulder before the analagous point so the limitation seems more
obvious. Not so with the M11.
What "hazards" should there be on motorways (apart from other motor
traffic)? And if he (for whatever reason) has not been presented with a
visible sign announcing the drop from 70 to 50, why should a driver
doing 70 remark on the presence of a Gatso, visible or otherwise?
JNugent
> Following up to Graham
>> if people don't see that camera after all the signs
>> and a VERY obvious camera (even at night) then they are really crap at
>> observation. How is it possible for any logical person to disagree with
>> that?
> you can't.
Absolutely not the issue. The issue has never at any stage been about
drivers not seeing the Gatso.
Mike....
> What "hazards" should there be on motorways (apart from other motor
> traffic)?
I won't make a list, but approaching a city, a tailback is the obvious one.
>And if he (for whatever reason) has not been presented with a
> visible sign announcing the drop from 70 to 50, why should a driver
> doing 70 remark on the presence of a Gatso, visible or otherwise?
no reason. However, its impossible for any mildly observant driver not to
know 50 starts there, the unlit 50 sign is a reason why convictions should
be quashed, to hold a line, not a reason to think observant drivers would
reasonably not know theres a 50 limit.
Mike....
> How is it possible for any logical person to disagree with
>>> that?
>
>> you can't.
>
> Absolutely not the issue.
I wasnt claiming it was the main issue, it is however true.
>The issue has never at any stage been about
> drivers not seeing the Gatso.
the main issue is that the law has to be applied correctly, hence speed
limits must be announced in accordance with rules. If they are not,
convictions should be quashed.
It is however also true that you have to be seriously not paying attention
to pass that gatso over the speed limit. 50 is painted everywhere and if
you are driving at 70 in the dark with insufficient lighting to see a speed
limit sign, theres some problem.
JNugent
> Following up to JNugent
>> What "hazards" should there be on motorways (apart from other motor
>> traffic)?
> I won't make a list, but approaching a city, a tailback is the obvious one.
But not one you will encounter at just any old time so not a reason (in
itself) for a lower limit on a motorway. If it were, there'd have to be
a 50 limit all along the motorways, since tailbacks can happen literally
anywhere on occasion.
Queues are visible in themselves, though there is an obvious advantage
in being able to warn of a queue (perhaps via those signs at the side of
the motorway).
>> And if he (for whatever reason) has not been presented with a
>> visible sign announcing the drop from 70 to 50, why should a driver
>> doing 70 remark on the presence of a Gatso, visible or otherwise?
> no reason. However, its impossible for any mildly observant driver not to
> know 50 starts there, the unlit 50 sign is a reason why convictions should
> be quashed, to hold a line, not a reason to think observant drivers would
> reasonably not know theres a 50 limit.
That's the very point at issue. The prosecution has dropped the
proceedings. They haven't done that for nothing.
Mike....
>> I won't make a list, but approaching a city, a tailback is the obvious one.
>
> But not one you will encounter at just any old time so not a reason (in
> itself) for a lower limit on a motorway. If it were, there'd have to be
> a 50 limit all along the motorways, since tailbacks can happen literally
> anywhere on occasion.
I agree, I wasnt making a case for 50, but a case for paying attention.
>> no reason. However, its impossible for any mildly observant driver not to
>> know 50 starts there, the unlit 50 sign is a reason why convictions should
>> be quashed, to hold a line, not a reason to think observant drivers would
>> reasonably not know theres a 50 limit.
>
> That's the very point at issue. The prosecution has dropped the
> proceedings. They haven't done that for nothing.
I assume they did it because the signage didnt conform to the law.
Steve Firth
> Mad Ken doesn't have any sabotage rights over the motorways, so it
> doesn't seem all that "odd".
However when Mad Ken rose to power, one of the things that he insisted
on was the declassification of urban motorways, so that he could take
control over the setting of speed limits and other restrictions. It's
one reason that the Westway has become a pedestrian ramp in the sky.
baggy1963
Eastbound on the M62 with a Police BMW waiting on the entry slip road.
The sight of the camera van was very effective in slowing traffic to
40 mph!
My satnav warned me of this.
Andrew Gabriel
Any idea why someone took an angle grinder to all the streetlamps
on that road? I used it for the first time in many years quite
recently, and it looks remarkably silly that all the streetlamps
which are only bolted to the central island have been cut through
at a height of a couple of metres.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Derek Geldard
Gabriel) wrote:
They may have been unsafe.
One windy night about 10 years ago as an emergency measure they
chopped off all the lights on part the Leeds to Manchester section of
the M62 because one or two had fallen across the carriageway.
Derek
unop...@mail.com
> In article <1ifhxp5.1mo496m13ihhihN%%ste...@malloc.co.uk>,
A quick Google of "Westway lamposts" yields:
<URL:http://billz1064.proboards1.com/index.cgi?
board=ROAD&action=display&thread=10334>
The reason stated there is that they were taken down around or before
January 2007 due to corrosion, as high winds caused them to sway
dangerously.
Regards,
Sid