Two consecutive speeding tickets!
Graz
two consecutrive days. The first was doing 36 in a 30 zone, the
second doing 39. Would anyone care to guess the most likely outcome?
(Actual result expected in the next 10 days)
Conor
getting a ban. If she passed her test in the last two years, she'll
lose her licence and have to retake the driving test.
36MPH is over the limit for a speed awareness course.
TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
NM
You to become full time on call taxi driver or your minicab bill to
increase dramatically for a year is my bet. However there is a very
good chance that you will hear nothing.
Are you sure it wasn't her 'sister', on holiday from somewhere exotic,
who was driving on those days. One of my relations, who is in the UK
quite often, readily admits if asked, to driving my car whilst here
and has never been issued with a penalty.
It's vital to have a real person in another country, don't be tempted
to make one up as clink will beckon if they can prove you have.
Keith
> 36MPH is over the limit for a speed awareness course.
Bullshit.
> TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
> same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
Bullshit.
If it was a talivan hidden sneakily in the bushes, she probably didn't
realize she'd been caught on the first day.
Steve Firth
> Are you sure it wasn't her 'sister', on holiday from somewhere exotic,
> who was driving on those days. One of my relations, who is in the UK
> quite often, readily admits if asked, to driving my car whilst here
> and has never been issued with a penalty.
>
> It's vital to have a real person in another country, don't be tempted
> to make one up as clink will beckon if they can prove you have.
Silly advice.
The police will then demand to see proof that the 'sister' was insured.
And the wife will then face a more serious charge of permitting
uninsured use of a vehicle, bigger fine, more points, court appearance.
If at any time they gain evidence that the 'sister' was not in the
country then there will be a charge of perjury and the courts tend to
apply a 12 to 18 month sentence.
Conor
she was caught twice and the speed she was doing?
Did you actually read the original post?
Steve Firth
> If it was a talivan hidden sneakily in the bushes, she probably didn't
> realize she'd been caught on the first day.
If it was a van then presumably he'd have said so rather than "camera".
OTOH, how fucking thick do you have to be not to spot a large white van
with red and yellow stripes, police logos, two windows open with cameras
poking out, and with SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP written on the side?
That's not to mention the signs they also leave by the side of the road
and (if one is sensible) the Satnav squawking it's head off about a
possible mobile camera location ahead.
Adrian
they were saying:
> OTOH, how fucking thick do you have to be not to spot a large white van
> with red and yellow stripes, police logos, two windows open with cameras
> poking out, and with SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP written on the side?
> That's not to mention the signs they also leave by the side of the road
The one that got me a few years ago on the A1 had none of those, with the
exception of a small portable sign in the shadow of the van. It was just
a plain, unmarked van parked off the road, with one rear door open - and
the contents in shadow.
Keith
> In article <slrngn6fge...@nospam.invalid>, Keith says...
>> realize she'd been caught on the first day.
>>
> So considering they've not had the FPNs yet, how the fuck do they know
> she was caught twice and the speed she was doing?
>
> Did you actually read the original post?
Yes. For example, I read the words
>>> The missus managed to get two speeding tickets at the same camera on
>>> two consecutrive days.
I interpret that to meant that two NIPs have arrived in the post. How do
you interpret it?
Graz
wrote:
>In article <4973243a...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
>> The missus managed to get two speeding tickets at the same camera on
>> two consecutrive days. The first was doing 36 in a 30 zone, the
>> second doing 39. Would anyone care to guess the most likely outcome?
>> (Actual result expected in the next 10 days)
>>
>6 points, £120 worth of fines. If she's already got 6 points, she'll be
>getting a ban. If she passed her test in the last two years, she'll
>lose her licence and have to retake the driving test.
No such luck. She's got 3 points for a red light offence (camera
again), but those expired in November.
>36MPH is over the limit for a speed awareness course.
Is it? What's the limit?
>TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
>same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
She didn't seem to be particularly camera-aware until this happened.
She's been driving for over 20 years and this is her first speeding
'experience'.
Mike Tomlinson
<tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>The one that got me a few years ago on the A1 had none of those, with the
>exception of a small portable sign in the shadow of the van. It was just
>a plain, unmarked van parked off the road, with one rear door open - and
>the contents in shadow.
The one I spotted in Birkenhead today was marked up but parked (probably
deliberately) behind a MPV to obscure it, with the camera poking out of
a hatch in the offside rear door. No warning, no signs on the road.
That's entrapment in my book; fortunately I was within the limit.
--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
Silk
> The one I spotted in Birkenhead today was marked up but parked (probably
> deliberately) behind a MPV to obscure it, with the camera poking out of
> a hatch in the offside rear door. No warning, no signs on the road.
> That's entrapment in my book; fortunately I was within the limit.
>
A tenner says there will be a great big fuck off speed camera warning
sign quarter of a mile before the "trap".
NM
The police cannot demand proof of this sort, the registered owner who
is the person addressed in the initial demand only has to provide the
name and address of the driver, nothing more, I have received demands
for more information, both by letter and by phone and have pointed out
that I have done all I am required to do by law and so far that has
been the end of it every time. But of course, as usual, you know
different.
Steve Firth
There will also be a large sign with a red border with a number written
in large black characters. Or a white circle with a black stripe across
it. It's not like these things are "entrapment".
Steve Firth
> On 18 Jan, 14:40, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > Are you sure it wasn't her 'sister', on holiday from somewhere exotic,
> > > who was driving on those days. One of my relations, who is in the UK
> > > quite often, readily admits if asked, to driving my car whilst here
> > > and has never been issued with a penalty.
> >
> > > It's vital to have a real person in another country, don't be tempted
> > > to make one up as clink will beckon if they can prove you have.
> >
> > Silly advice.
> >
> > The police will then demand to see proof that the 'sister' was insured.
> > And the wife will then face a more serious charge of permitting
> > uninsured use of a vehicle, bigger fine, more points, court appearance.
> > If at any time they gain evidence that the 'sister' was not in the
> > country then there will be a charge of perjury and the courts tend to
> > apply a 12 to 18 month sentence.
>
> The police cannot demand proof of this sort,
Yes they can, and they do.
> the registered owner who is the person addressed in the initial demand
No, it's the registered keeper.
> only has to provide the name and address of the driver, nothing more,
Indeed, but they don't have a mandate to tell lies. Tell a lie at the
wrong time and you will be a world of crap.
> I have received demands for more information, both by letter and by phone
So the police can indeed demand proof, and they have demanded proof from
you in the past.
> and have pointed out that I have done all I am required to do by law and
> so far that has been the end of it every time. But of course, as usual,
> you know different.
So far, if you chose to identify someone who was not driving at the
time, you've been lucky. I suppose you can keep placing bets on how
lucky you feel. If OTOH you weren't telling pork pies about the driver
then you never had anything to fear.
On this occasion however you are beig advised to make a flase
declaration. You may get away with it, but increasingly plod works hard
to catch you out.
Silk
Indeed. You don't have to agree with speed limits but getting caught
breaking them shows poor observation, nothing less.
If anything, with all the various rules they have to follow, it's more
difficult to get caught now than it was 30 years ago.
Mike P
news:1itr3gr.m8s0yr1l215hvN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
I had a Brazilian licence for a while as well as a EU one. In 2003, I got
nicked for speeding, rang up the number on the NIP and said "I've a
Brazilian licence, what do i do?". I never heard from them again.
--
Mike P
92 Mazda MX-5
99 Ford Puma 1.7 VCT
Ret.
> In article <6tgu2fF...@mid.individual.net>, Adrian
> <tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>
>> The one that got me a few years ago on the A1 had none of those,
>> with the exception of a small portable sign in the shadow of the
>> van. It was just a plain, unmarked van parked off the road, with one
>> rear door open - and the contents in shadow.
>
> The one I spotted in Birkenhead today was marked up but parked
> (probably deliberately) behind a MPV to obscure it, with the camera
> poking out of a hatch in the offside rear door. No warning, no signs
> on the road. That's entrapment in my book; fortunately I was within
> the limit.
Entrapment? What a load of nonsense.
Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit
an offence which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.
How does parking an unmarked van at the side of the road *induce* anyone to
break the speed limit?
Ret.
Conor
> The one I spotted in Birkenhead today was marked up but parked (probably
> deliberately) behind a MPV to obscure it, with the camera poking out of
> a hatch in the offside rear door. No warning, no signs on the road.
> That's entrapment in my book; fortunately I was within the limit.
>
Entrapment..ROFLMAO.
Conor
> I interpret that to meant that two NIPs have arrived in the post. How do
> you interpret it?
>
That they're yet to arrive and they've 10 days to arrive in order to
comply with set time limits.
Conor
> >36MPH is over the limit for a speed awareness course.
>
> Is it? What's the limit?
>
A few MPH over. Usually 32-33 but not 35.
> >TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
> >same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
>
> She didn't seem to be particularly camera-aware until this happened.
> She's been driving for over 20 years and this is her first speeding
> 'experience'.
>
Day 1, big flash goes off. Recalls events to other half who tells her
she's been caught speeding.
Now at this point, most normal people would've made sure they were
doing 30 past that point the following day but not her.
tim.....
"Silk" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:gkvpv1$1th$3...@news.motzarella.org...
but there are 100s of these signs where there aren't cameras
I agree that it's not a trap, but a sign doesn't equal a camera
tim
Brimstone
Keith
> In article <slrngn6iav...@nospam.invalid>, Keith says...
>> I interpret that to meant that two NIPs have arrived in the post. How do
>> you interpret it?
>>
> That they're yet to arrive and they've 10 days to arrive in order to
> comply with set time limits.
Well call me crazy, but I interpreted "she got two speeding tickets" to
mean that she'd got two speeding tickets.
If the NIPs haven't arrived, how would the OP know the exact speeds she
was doing past the cameras?
Keith
> but there are 100s of these signs where there aren't cameras
>
> I agree that it's not a trap, but a sign doesn't equal a camera
Exactly.
It's all part of the scamerati's lies about how they aren't targetting
motorists, just want to reduce speeds at accident blackspots, etc., so
they make a great play of being "open" about camera locations.
But this openness is a facade, because they litter roads with camera
signs whether or not cameras operate there, just to unsettle drivers and
try to bully nervous motorists (new drivers and those on 9 points
especially) into driving well below the legal limit to give themselves a
safety margin for the cameras.
If they were really honest and open about things, they'd put camera
signs at the start of the area where cameras operate, and "end of speed
enforcement" signs at the end. But of course they don't, because all
they care about is 1) making money; 2) making drivers' lives a misery.
Elder
conor_...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <49735bcd...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
>
> > >36MPH is over the limit for a speed awareness course.
> >
> > Is it? What's the limit?
> >
> A few MPH over. Usually 32-33 but not 35.
>
> > >TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
> > >same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
> >
> > She didn't seem to be particularly camera-aware until this happened.
> > She's been driving for over 20 years and this is her first speeding
> > 'experience'.
> >
> Day 1, big flash goes off. Recalls events to other half who tells her
> she's been caught speeding.
>
> Now at this point, most normal people would've made sure they were
> doing 30 past that point the following day but not her.
>
>
>
the 50 limit becomes Mway national, then goes back to 50 for the works.
She is driving along, passing a wagon, realises, she hasn't noticed
whether she is in the first 50 still, back in the national, or in the
roadworks 50 (the works have moved on but the limit starts in the same
place). She has been along side this wagon for a while is just doing 60
and pulling clear when she gets a bright flash in her rear view.
She spends the next two weeks shitting herself as she has never had a
speeding ticket. I reckon it was the wagon either flashing her in to the
first lane, or warning her about the limit. She backed off straight away
anway and never got a ticket, but I've never seen her so scared of the
post.
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
Brimstone
What is it about keeping under the speed limit that you find so hard to
understand?
Or do you consider breaking the law to be "really honest and open"?
Steve Firth
> If they were really honest and open about things, they'd put camera
> signs at the start of the area where cameras operate, and "end of speed
> enforcement" signs at the end.
They do. They put a FoB number on a stick before and a NSL at the end.
Are you blind? Because if you are you shouldn't be driving.
> But of course they don't, because all they care about is 1) making money;
> 2) making drivers' lives a misery.
If you drive within the limit they will not make money and they will be
unable to make your life a misery. Gosh, that was difficult, eh?
Steve Firth
> Day 1, big flash goes off. Recalls events to other half who tells her
> she's been caught speeding.
>
> Now at this point, most normal people would've made sure they were
> doing 30 past that point the following day but not her.
She has things in common with my sister-in-law who got flashed by a
camera in Bristol. The next day the same thing, then she did it again.
Apparently, according to my mother, calling my s-i-l "a dozy twat who
deserves to lose her licence" upset my brother. What else do you call
someone who drives past the same camera three times in a row?
I'm disappointed she didn't do it a fourth time.
Tony Dragon
You seem to be ignoring a basic point, she was speeding.
--
Tony the Dragon
Conor
> On 18 Jan 2009 at 19:12, tim..... wrote:
> > but there are 100s of these signs where there aren't cameras
> >
> > I agree that it's not a trap, but a sign doesn't equal a camera
>
> Exactly.
>
> It's all part of the scamerati's lies about how they aren't targetting
> motorists, just want to reduce speeds at accident blackspots, etc., so
> they make a great play of being "open" about camera locations.
>
licence, you'd be driving within the posted limit anyway so what's your
problem?
tim.....
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e2dnRWyseAW4u7U...@bt.com...
only in the sense that there might be a camera on almost any road
tim
Conor
> If they were really honest and open about things, they'd put camera
> signs at the start of the area where cameras operate, and "end of speed
> enforcement" signs at the end.
They do but do you honestly expect them to constantly keep putting them
up and taking them down every time they put a mobile camera in an area?
Stupid twat.
Keith
> You seem to be ignoring a basic point, she was speeding.
All we know is that according to a camera she was speeding.
In any event, in both cases she was doing below 40mph in a 30 zone.
That's the sort of peccadillo that every motorist commits every day -
assuming that she wasn't driving dangerously (and of course a camera
could never tell either way), why should she be hauled over the coals?
Conor
> In any event, in both cases she was doing below 40mph in a 30 zone.
> That's the sort of peccadillo that every motorist commits every day -
> assuming that she wasn't driving dangerously (and of course a camera
> could never tell either way), why should she be hauled over the coals?
>
Because she got caught breaking the law.
I take it going by your comments that you are in favour of people who
drive uninsured because 1 in 6 do that every day. Or what about the 1
million untaxed cars on the road? OK with that too?
Adrian
were saying:
>> In any event, in both cases she was doing below 40mph in a 30 zone.
>> That's the sort of peccadillo that every motorist commits every day -
>> assuming that she wasn't driving dangerously (and of course a camera
>> could never tell either way), why should she be hauled over the coals?
> Because she got caught breaking the law.
>
> I take it going by your comments that you are in favour of people who
> drive uninsured because 1 in 6 do that every day. Or what about the 1
> million untaxed cars on the road? OK with that too?
I don't see them as even remotely comparable - unless you're trying to
suggest that every single speed limit in the country is a sensible
dividing point between a safe and unsafe speed for that road in all
conditions?
Keith
> In article <slrngn737i...@nospam.invalid>, Keith says...
>> In any event, in both cases she was doing below 40mph in a 30 zone.
>> That's the sort of peccadillo that every motorist commits every day -
>> assuming that she wasn't driving dangerously (and of course a camera
>> could never tell either way), why should she be hauled over the coals?
>>
> Because she got caught breaking the law.
>
> I take it going by your comments that you are in favour of people who
> drive uninsured because 1 in 6 do that every day. Or what about the 1
> million untaxed cars on the road? OK with that too?
Look at the people who drive uninsured. They are irresponsible,
generally young hooligans from council estates, often involved in crime,
etc.
Now look at the people who speed. Many of them are naturally law-abiding
older people who take driving seriously and try to act responsibly, but
they get trapped by a system designed to squeeze money out of them in
particular -- people of a certain age (ahem) got used to habitually
breaking the 30 limit, since that was what was done almost universally
until the scamerati came along.
OK, so speeding is an absolute offence, but given that it's so easy to
slip over the limit and it very rarely compromises safety, wouldn't it
be more reasonable (if, as people always claim, the idea is not to
persecute the motorist) to discount speeding offences unless there was
evidence of a clear intention to break the limit? Drifting up to 10mph
over the limit can certainly happen unintentionally, so it would make
sense for the ACPO guidelines to start recommending an FPN significantly
beyond that - say 15 or 20 over -- or more at the higher limits.
Conor
> I don't see them as even remotely comparable - unless you're trying to
> suggest that every single speed limit in the country is a sensible
> dividing point between a safe and unsafe speed for that road in all
> conditions?
>
Neither do I. I was merely pointing out the flaws in his argument. If
you're going to break the law, don't bitch about being caught.
Conor
> Look at the people who drive uninsured. They are irresponsible,
> generally young hooligans from council estates, often involved in crime,
> etc.
>
Except for the raft of people on TV programmes who aren't and typically
driving vehicles costing £10,000's.
> Now look at the people who speed. Many of them are naturally law-abiding
> older people who take driving seriously and try to act responsibly, but
> they get trapped by a system designed to squeeze money out of them in
> particular -- people of a certain age (ahem) got used to habitually
> breaking the 30 limit, since that was what was done almost universally
> until the scamerati came along.
BWAHAHAHA. How can they be law abiding if they're breaking the law by
exceeding the speed limit? It is not a system designed to squeeze money
out of people at all.
If it were, I'd have not been able to do 1.8 million miles (the same as
someone driving the average of 10,000 miles a year from age 17 until
they're 197) all over the UK in areas I don't know without getting
caught, would I?
>
> OK, so speeding is an absolute offence, but given that it's so easy to
> slip over the limit and it very rarely compromises safety, wouldn't it
> be more reasonable (if, as people always claim, the idea is not to
> persecute the motorist) to discount speeding offences unless there was
> evidence of a clear intention to break the limit?
Indeed which is why there's a leeway of 10%+2MPH.
> Drifting up to 10mph
> over the limit can certainly happen unintentionally,
Utter bollox and if that's what you do, you should be bloody ashamed of
yourself. I'll give you 5MPH, but not 10.
Adrian
were saying:
> It is not a system designed to squeeze money out of people at all.
Hmmm. The large number of changes to limits over the last few years would
suggest otherwise. They certainly haven't been changed for safety reasons.
James R
"Conor" <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6tgpl0F...@mid.individual.net...
> In article <4973243a...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
>> The missus managed to get two speeding tickets at the same camera on
>> two consecutrive days. The first was doing 36 in a 30 zone, the
>> second doing 39. Would anyone care to guess the most likely outcome?
>> (Actual result expected in the next 10 days)
>>
> 6 points, £120 worth of fines. If she's already got 6 points, she'll be
> getting a ban.
WRONG - your complete lack of knowledge shows yet again!
You are NOT always banned with 12 points but are more likely
to be by a Court.
>If she passed her test in the last two years, she'll
> lose her licence and have to retake the driving test.
>
That bit is correct.
> 36MPH is over the limit for a speed awareness course.
>
No it isn't as not all areas have them, it is not a general rule.
Drivers have no automatic right to ask to go on a course or even
be offered a place. There is little evidence they do any good as
a lot of people who go on them reoffend within months.
> TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
> same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
>
I would agree there, but you also need to check facts FIRST before
posting! People have told you that in other groups I noticed. Not only
about the subject of driving.
> --
> Conor
>
James R
"Graz" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4973243a...@news.motzarella.org...
> The missus managed to get two speeding tickets at the same camera on
> two consecutrive days. The first was doing 36 in a 30 zone, the
> second doing 39. Would anyone care to guess the most likely outcome?
> (Actual result expected in the next 10 days)
>
>
6 points and whatever the fine is now, isn't it 60 a go for under 45 in a
30?
It would be cheaper to buy her a satnav and subscribe to camera alerts.
Or how about an eye test, or driving along pointing out what a speed camera
looks like!
James R
"Keith" <ke...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:slrngn6fge...@nospam.invalid...
> On 18 Jan 2009 at 13:37, Conor wrote:
>> 36MPH is over the limit for a speed awareness course.
>
>
>> TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
>> same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
>
>
> If it was a talivan hidden sneakily in the bushes, she probably didn't
> realize she'd been caught on the first day.
>
>
Maybe an eye test then? If she can't see a van how can she be driving?
No one can be as thick as not to see a van or a speed camera. They do NOT
hide - that's what idiots caught by them always say to excuse their lack of
intelligence.
Steve Firth
No, they've been changed for NIMBY reasons and in some places because of
changes in the pattern of settlement. In my area speeds have dropped
from 60mph to 40mph partly because of a change to National Park status,
partly because of the increasing problem of wildlife on the roads
leading to nasty accidents, partly because of a sharp increase in KSI,
and partly because of petitions from residents about increasing traffic
noise. I think the balance between each of them is fairly evenly
weighted.
Now in San Diego
> The missus managed to get two speeding tickets at the same camera on
> two consecutrive days. The first was doing 36 in a 30 zone, the
> second doing 39. Would anyone care to guess the most likely outcome?
> (Actual result expected in the next 10 days)
If the car had very oversize (diameter) tyres on them, you might find
that when the car is going 36 MPH,
it might show only 30PH on the instrument panel. Get car checked on a
rolling-road.
Tony Dragon
> On 18 Jan 2009 at 19:47, Tony Dragon wrote:
>> You seem to be ignoring a basic point, she was speeding.
>
> All we know is that according to a camera she was speeding.
>
> In any event, in both cases she was doing below 40mph in a 30 zone.
> That's the sort of peccadillo that every motorist commits every day -
No they don't
> assuming that she wasn't driving dangerously (and of course a camera
> could never tell either way), why should she be hauled over the coals?
>
Because she was breaking the law?
--
Tony the Dragon
Elder
@yahoo.co.uk says...
else could it be?
Tony Dragon
He has not suggested that. look at the post, here's a clue "Because she
got caught breaking the law"
--
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
--
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
In which case I would think other laws have been broken, for a start
having an incorrect reading speedo.
--
Tony the Dragon
Now in San Diego
> On 18 Jan 2009 at 19:12, tim..... wrote:
>
> > but there are 100s of these signs where there aren't cameras
>
> > I agree that it's not a trap, but a sign doesn't equal a camera
>
> Exactly.
>
> It's all part of the scamerati's lies about how they aren't targetting
> motorists, just want to reduce speeds at accident blackspots, etc., so
> they make a great play of being "open" about camera locations.
>
> But this openness is a facade, because they litter roads with camera
> signs whether or not cameras operate there, just to unsettle drivers and
> try to bully nervous motorists (new drivers and those on 9 points
> especially) into driving well below the legal limit to give themselves a
> safety margin for the cameras.
>
> If they were really honest and open about things, they'd put camera
> signs at the start of the area where cameras operate, and "end of speed
> enforcement" signs at the end. But of course they don't, because all
> they care about is 1) making money; 2) making drivers' lives a misery.
If they were honest they would have a tape sent along with the ticket
showing conditions and traffic for ten seconds before and after
ticketed driver was snapped. In this way, the judge could see if it
was an improper speed for conditions and adjust penality accordingly.
It is was merely for breaking a pointless rule, s/he could be punished
to an hour sweeping a nearby shopping precinct or some other useful
task for breaking silly (for the moment) speed limit.
Tony Dragon
Do you believe that there should be speed limits?
How would you work out these limits
If your newly worked out speed limit was Xmph do you think you should
get a ticket if you went over this limit?
--
Tony the Dragon
Now in San Diego
wrote:
> Keith wrote:
> > On 18 Jan 2009 at 19:12, tim..... wrote:
> >> but there are 100s of these signs where there aren't cameras
>
> >> I agree that it's not a trap, but a sign doesn't equal a camera
>
> > Exactly.
>
> > It's all part of the scamerati's lies about how they aren't targetting
> > motorists, just want to reduce speeds at accident blackspots, etc., so
> > they make a great play of being "open" about camera locations.
>
> > But this openness is a facade, because they litter roads with camera
> > signs whether or not cameras operate there, just to unsettle drivers
> > and try to bully nervous motorists (new drivers and those on 9 points
> > especially) into driving well below the legal limit to give
> > themselves a safety margin for the cameras.
>
> > If they were really honest and open about things, they'd put camera
> > signs at the start of the area where cameras operate, and "end of
> > speed enforcement" signs at the end. But of course they don't,
> > because all they care about is 1) making money; 2) making drivers'
> > lives a misery.
>
> understand?
>
>Or do you consider breaking the law to be "really honest and open?
Why do you seemingly object to people driving at a safe, for
conditions, speed?
BTW, I was giving a talk pointing out how a non-speeder could pass a
speeder.
The law people in the audience were nodding in agreement because my
talk was real-life-safety
not needles-on-a-pin stuff.
Now in San Diego
How about as a driver going at a speed safe for conditions?
(I know! I know, just another bloody safety officer, talking sense!)
Brimstone
I don't.
Chris Lawrence
> TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
> same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
You daft bastard. It is nothing to do with stupidity. Humans can cope
with a fairly small number of events at once. If something else is
going on then commonsense and concentration will be where it is needed -
such as matters of safety - and not necessarily picking out cameras.
Everyone makes mistakes like this from time to time. Every time you
make one you ponder for a few seconds about how no-one on this group
will ever know about it, before your mind drifts back to hating car drivers.
Chris
Conor
@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Now in San Diego says...
> How about as a driver going at a speed safe for conditions?
> (I know! I know, just another bloody safety officer, talking sense!)
>
You're assuming that they're capable of deciding a safe speed for the
conditions. Around here every summer we have plenty of examples proving
people aren't.
Conor
Conor
> WRONG - your complete lack of knowledge shows yet again!
> You are NOT always banned with 12 points but are more likely
> to be by a Court.
>
Yes you are banned with 12 points under totting up unless you go to
court and can show that it would cause extreme hardship out of
proportion with the offence, i.e your family would suffer because you'd
lose your job. If you accept the FPNs without going to court, it's an
automatic ban. Perhaps you should do YOUR homework, dumb cunt.
Show me proof otherwise.
> I would agree there, but you also need to check facts FIRST before
> posting! People have told you that in other groups I noticed. Not only
> about the subject of driving.
>
Whatever, shithead. I've done more mileage in the last 15 years than
you'll do if you live to 195, all points and accident free. When you
reach 100 and have not had a single accident or got any points, please
feel free to tell me what I do and don't know. Until then, fuck off.
Conor
says...
> IIRC the leeway in London is 20%+4mph, but I am open to correction.
>
So in a 30 limit, you'll get away with doing 40?
Conor
says...
> Conor wrote:
>
> > TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
> > same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
>
> You daft bastard. It is nothing to do with stupidity.
It is everything to do with stupidity.
> Humans can cope
> with a fairly small number of events at once. If something else is
> going on then commonsense and concentration will be where it is needed -
> such as matters of safety - and not necessarily picking out cameras.
Are you honestly saying that if you drove past a camera and noticed it
flashing you because you drove too fast, you would drive past it above
the limit the following day?
What a fucking moron.
Steve Firth
> In article <6thjrrF...@mid.individual.net>, Adrian says...
> > Conor <conor_...@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> > were saying:
> >
> > > It is not a system designed to squeeze money out of people at all.
> >
> > Hmmm. The large number of changes to limits over the last few years would
> > suggest otherwise. They certainly haven't been changed for safety reasons.
> >
> Are these changes hidden?
Hidden no, stupid yes. In a five mile stretch the speed limit along the
road where I live goes NSL, 40, 50, 40, NSL, 30. The 50 limit section is
less than half a mile, the first 40 section about a quarter of a mile.
I'm sure you'll agree that the sequence is fucking stupid and the short
stretches at each restriction pointless. Of course there's often a
camera van in the second 40 section, because by then people have got
tired of the buggering about.
Graz
wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2009 at 19:47, Tony Dragon wrote:
>> You seem to be ignoring a basic point, she was speeding.
>
>All we know is that according to a camera she was speeding.
>
>In any event, in both cases she was doing below 40mph in a 30 zone.
>That's the sort of peccadillo that every motorist commits every day -
>assuming that she wasn't driving dangerously (and of course a camera
>could never tell either way), why should she be hauled over the coals?
Anyone driving at 35 or less in a 30 zone is likely to find themselves
tailgated or worse.
Chris Lawrence
> In article <c029adf5-7eca-473f-9718-aa525d926c61
> @f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Now in San Diego says...
>
>> How about as a driver going at a speed safe for conditions?
>> (I know! I know, just another bloody safety officer, talking sense!)
>>
> You're assuming that they're capable of deciding a safe speed for the
> conditions. Around here every summer we have plenty of examples proving
> people aren't.
*Every day* I see *hundreds* of examples proving people are. Hundreds
of criminals all driving safely. Fancy that. Someone going at 36 in a
40 can be driving at an unsafe speed for the conditions. In the eyes of
the law, and apparently you, they're "fit to drive" and a-okay because
they're not speeding.
Chris
Graz
wrote:
>In article <slrngn75bp...@nospam.invalid>, Keith says...
>
>> Look at the people who drive uninsured. They are irresponsible,
>> generally young hooligans from council estates, often involved in crime,
>> etc.
>>
>Except for the raft of people on TV programmes who aren't and typically
>driving vehicles costing £10,000's.
>
>> Now look at the people who speed. Many of them are naturally law-abiding
>> older people who take driving seriously and try to act responsibly, but
>> they get trapped by a system designed to squeeze money out of them in
>> particular -- people of a certain age (ahem) got used to habitually
>> breaking the 30 limit, since that was what was done almost universally
>> until the scamerati came along.
>
>BWAHAHAHA. How can they be law abiding if they're breaking the law by
>exceeding the speed limit? It is not a system designed to squeeze money
>out of people at all.
>
>If it were, I'd have not been able to do 1.8 million miles (the same as
>someone driving the average of 10,000 miles a year from age 17 until
>they're 197) all over the UK in areas I don't know without getting
>caught, would I?
>
>>
>> OK, so speeding is an absolute offence, but given that it's so easy to
>> slip over the limit and it very rarely compromises safety, wouldn't it
>> be more reasonable (if, as people always claim, the idea is not to
>> persecute the motorist) to discount speeding offences unless there was
>> evidence of a clear intention to break the limit?
>
>Indeed which is why there's a leeway of 10%+2MPH.
For a 30 zone, that would be 35mph. And yet you maintain that 36mph
is still too fast to qualify for a speed awareness course?
Graz
wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2009 at 19:07, Conor wrote:
>> In article <slrngn6iav...@nospam.invalid>, Keith says...
>>> I interpret that to meant that two NIPs have arrived in the post. How do
>>> you interpret it?
>>>
>> That they're yet to arrive and they've 10 days to arrive in order to
>> comply with set time limits.
>
>Well call me crazy, but I interpreted "she got two speeding tickets" to
>mean that she'd got two speeding tickets.
>
>If the NIPs haven't arrived, how would the OP know the exact speeds she
>was doing past the cameras?
They have indeed arrived, In fact, they arrived together.
Graz
wrote:
>In article <49735bcd...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
>
>> >36MPH is over the limit for a speed awareness course.
>>
>> Is it? What's the limit?
>>
>A few MPH over. Usually 32-33 but not 35.
So what happened to the +10% plus 2mph?
>> >TBH, if she's stupid enough to be caught on two successive days by the
>> >same camera, she really isn't fit to drive.
>>
>> She didn't seem to be particularly camera-aware until this happened.
>> She's been driving for over 20 years and this is her first speeding
>> 'experience'.
>>
>Day 1, big flash goes off. Recalls events to other half who tells her
>she's been caught speeding.
>
>Now at this point, most normal people would've made sure they were
>doing 30 past that point the following day but not her.
These cameras don't flash.
Eeyore
Graz wrote:
> The missus managed to get two speeding tickets at the same camera on
> two consecutrive days. The first was doing 36 in a 30 zone, the
> second doing 39. Would anyone care to guess the most likely outcome?
> (Actual result expected in the next 10 days)
Put a mandela necklace around the camera.
Graham
DanB
news:fb54b9d3-e823-4c03...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Jan, 14:40, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> The police cannot demand proof of this sort,
They can, but they don't because they can just bang the registration into
the computer and look who is insured on said car on the NMID.
> the registered owner who
> is the person addressed in the initial demand
The letter is sent to the registered keeper, it says on the back of the V5
that it's not proof of ownership.
<got bored>
--
Dan B
<empty parking space>
Graz
It's one of those new ones. Too high up, sadly.
Ian Dalziel
No.
Next question?
--
Ian D
Adrian
were saying:
>> How about as a driver going at a speed safe for conditions? (I know! I
>> know, just another bloody safety officer, talking sense!)
> You're assuming that they're capable of deciding a safe speed for the
> conditions. Around here every summer we have plenty of examples proving
> people aren't.
Unless the limit is ALWAYS safe, drivers HAVE to be capable of deciding a
safe speed for the conditions.
So people fuck up. Wow. Hey, I've got some news for you - sometimes, they
fuck up below the speed limit, too.
Ed Chilada
<mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <6tgu2fF...@mid.individual.net>, Adrian
><tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>
>>The one that got me a few years ago on the A1 had none of those, with the
>>exception of a small portable sign in the shadow of the van. It was just
>>a plain, unmarked van parked off the road, with one rear door open - and
>>the contents in shadow.
>
>The one I spotted in Birkenhead today was marked up but parked (probably
>deliberately) behind a MPV to obscure it, with the camera poking out of
>a hatch in the offside rear door. No warning, no signs on the road.
>That's entrapment in my book
Which book is this?! I thought entrapment was when the police incite
the crime in the first place? Which, incidentally, is what they seem
to be doing leaving those bait cars around (although I'm very pleased
they do).
Tony Dragon
> In article <gl05lb$1ai$2...@news.albasani.net>, James R says...
>
>> WRONG - your complete lack of knowledge shows yet again!
>> You are NOT always banned with 12 points but are more likely
>> to be by a Court.
>>
> Yes you are banned with 12 points under totting up unless you go to
> court and can show that it would cause extreme hardship out of
> proportion with the offence, i.e your family would suffer because you'd
> lose your job. If you accept the FPNs without going to court, it's an
> automatic ban. Perhaps you should do YOUR homework, dumb cunt.
>
> Show me proof otherwise.
>
>> I would agree there, but you also need to check facts FIRST before
>> posting! People have told you that in other groups I noticed. Not only
>> about the subject of driving.
>>
> Whatever, shithead. I've done more mileage in the last 15 years than
> you'll do if you live to 195, all points and accident free. When you
> reach 100 and have not had a single accident or got any points, please
> feel free to tell me what I do and don't know. Until then, fuck off.
>
>
>
Conner I not trying to get at you, but are you saying that you have
never had even a small bump while driving. Perhaps misjudging a turn
while maneuvering in a tight yard or perhaps tapping a loading bank a
bit hard.
--
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
> In article <pMGdnecbq9iAOu7U...@bt.com>, Tony Dragon
> says...
>
>> IIRC the leeway in London is 20%+4mph, but I am open to correction.
>>
> So in a 30 limit, you'll get away with doing 40?
>
I did say I was open to correction, but it was a figure I was told by a
copper in London.
--
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
I don't find that happens to me, and if it did it would not worry me.
--
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
Are you saying that you should be allowed to drive at any speed?
--
Tony the Dragon
NM
> NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On 18 Jan, 14:40, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > who was driving on those days. One of my relations, who is in the UK
> > > > quite often, readily admits if asked, to driving my car whilst here
> > > > and has never been issued with a penalty.
>
> > > > It's vital to have a real person in another country, don't be tempted
> > > > to make one up as clink will beckon if they can prove you have.
>
> > > Silly advice.
>
> > > The police will then demand to see proof that the 'sister' was insured.
> > > And the wife will then face a more serious charge of permitting
> > > uninsured use of a vehicle, bigger fine, more points, court appearance.
> > > If at any time they gain evidence that the 'sister' was not in the
> > > country then there will be a charge of perjury and the courts tend to
> > > apply a 12 to 18 month sentence.
>
> > The police cannot demand proof of this sort,
>
No they can't, of course they can request but not demand, the
information required from the registered owner is quite specific,
having given that information there is no obligation to give more, a
response of 'No comment',perhaps put more politely, is sufficient.
>
> > the registered owner who is the person addressed in the initial demand
>
> No, it's the registered keeper.
I see, pedants rule.
>
> > only has to provide the name and address of the driver, nothing more,
>
> Indeed, but they don't have a mandate to tell lies. Tell a lie at the
> wrong time and you will be a world of crap.
Who is to say it's a lie? Anyway the person concerned may have a
criminal record therefore is automatically legally judged as being
unable to tell the truth.
>
> > I have received demands for more information, both by letter and by phone
>
> So the police can indeed demand proof, and they have demanded proof from
> you in the past.
As said before the cannot demand, they can and do approach giving the
appearance of a demand but it need not be answered. Know your rights.
>
> > and have pointed out that I have done all I am required to do by law and
> > so far that has been the end of it every time. But of course, as usual,
> > you know different.
>
> So far, if you chose to identify someone who was not driving at the
> time, you've been lucky. I suppose you can keep placing bets on how
> lucky you feel. If OTOH you weren't telling pork pies about the driver
> then you never had anything to fear.
I don't think luck comes into it, it's using the system, until the
system changes I shall continue to do so.
I will add that since I no longer live in London or it's environs the
issue has never arisen, I know where every speed camera is within 60
miles of here and the usual spots for mobiles are well known locally.
>
> On this occasion however you are beig advised to make a flase
> declaration. You may get away with it, but increasingly plod works hard
> to catch you out.
When the British eventually get it together to collect fines from Euro
zone countries it will be a worthless exercise but in their usual half
baked solution to any problem they are trying to collect using a 'debt
collection agencies' a complete waste of time and money, man comes to
the door, "You must pay speeding fine from Britain" response, "Has it
been processed through my local court? No? then piss off".
NM
> In article <c029adf5-7eca-473f-9718-aa525d926c61
> @f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Now in San Diego says...
>
> > How about as a driver going at a speed safe for conditions?
> > (I know! I know, just another bloody safety officer, talking sense!)
>
> You're assuming that they're capable of deciding a safe speed for the
> conditions. Around here every summer we have plenty of examples proving
> people aren't.
Against the countless millions of journys where they have demonstrated
they are?
Conor
NM
> On 2009-01-19, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, it's the registered keeper.
>
> > I see, pedants rule.
>
>
> --
> "Please try to understand, the one you call Messiah is a lie."
> [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]
I sit corrected.
Conor
@r24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, NM says...
denominator.
Conor
> >Indeed which is why there's a leeway of 10%+2MPH.
>
> For a 30 zone, that would be 35mph. And yet you maintain that 36mph
> is still too fast to qualify for a speed awareness course?
>
Yep. Every post I've ever seen corroborates that.
Conor
> These cameras don't flash.
Here we go again. So are we finally going to get the whole story or is
this just a bit of justification?
Conor
> Unless the limit is ALWAYS safe, drivers HAVE to be capable of deciding a
> safe speed for the conditions.
>
> So people fuck up. Wow. Hey, I've got some news for you - sometimes, they
> fuck up below the speed limit, too.
>
Indeed, thus disproving the former paragraph.
Adrian
were saying:
>> Unless the limit is ALWAYS safe, drivers HAVE to be capable of deciding
>> a safe speed for the conditions.
>>
>> So people fuck up. Wow. Hey, I've got some news for you - sometimes,
>> they fuck up below the speed limit, too.
> Indeed, thus disproving the former paragraph.
Not at all.
Conor
says...
> Conner I not trying to get at you, but are you saying that you have
> never had even a small bump while driving. Perhaps misjudging a turn
> while maneuvering in a tight yard or perhaps tapping a loading bank a
> bit hard.
>
Oh I see, we're doing the grasping at straws routine. Yes I have had to
nudge a stack of pallets in a tight yard and occassionally reversed
onto bumpstops on loading bays a little hard but the worst damage I've
done to a truck was to put a small 3" split in the side of a fridge
wagon when trying to blindside into this yard here:
when a stupid moron in a van had parked on the corner, halving the size
of the entrance. It was a lot fuller than in the photo, having all the
loading bays full, not just the one, a wagon tipping in the middle of
the yard and a stack of pallets.
If you'd see some of the places we're expected to get into and manouvre
in, you'd not think it possible.
However, where the road traffic act applies, I have not had an accident
in my lorry driving career. I'll freely admit to having a few as a
young un and the last one I had was in 1990 at the age of 18.
Conor
Adrian
were saying:
>> >> Unless the limit is ALWAYS safe, drivers HAVE to be capable of
>> >> deciding a safe speed for the conditions.
>> >>
>> >> So people fuck up. Wow. Hey, I've got some news for you - sometimes,
>> >> they fuck up below the speed limit, too.
>> > Indeed, thus disproving the former paragraph.
>> Not at all.
> If it were true, there'd be no accidents.
Quite the opposite.
Whether drivers can be trusted or not to set an appropriate speed is
irrelevant to whether they fuck up and crash or not, unless you believe
that every single crash has inappropriate speed (if they can be trusted)
or speed above the limit (if they cannot be trusted) as the sole cause.
Rob
|| In article <4973ef13...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
||
|||| Indeed which is why there's a leeway of 10%+2MPH.
|||
||| For a 30 zone, that would be 35mph. And yet you maintain that 36mph
||| is still too fast to qualify for a speed awareness course?
|||
|| Yep. Every post I've ever seen corroborates that.
Apart from in places such as South Wales, a 30 camera won't even trigger
unless the speed is 35 or over. If 36 is too high to qualify for a SAC then
just who does qualify? Only those caught dead on 35?
--
Rob
Graz
That was exactly the point I was trying to get across.
Graz
Me neither. I usually let tailgaters pass and then I tailgate them.
Graz
wrote:
>In article <4973eff9...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
>
>> These cameras don't flash.
>
>Here we go again. So are we finally going to get the whole story or is
>this just a bit of justification?
What whole story? She got caught by a camera of the non-flashing
variety. Therefore after the first offence, she wouldn't have seen a
flash to remind to slow down next time. Duh.
PM
> Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>> In article <6tgu2fF...@mid.individual.net>, Adrian
>> <tooma...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>> The one that got me a few years ago on the A1 had none of those,
>>> with the exception of a small portable sign in the shadow of the
>>> van. It was just a plain, unmarked van parked off the road, with one
>>> rear door open - and the contents in shadow.
>>
>> The one I spotted in Birkenhead today was marked up but parked
>> (probably deliberately) behind a MPV to obscure it, with the camera
>> poking out of a hatch in the offside rear door. No warning, no signs
>> the limit.
>
> Entrapment? What a load of nonsense.
>
> Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to
> commit an offence which the person would otherwise have been unlikely
> to commit.
>
> How does parking an unmarked van at the side of the road *induce*
> anyone to break the speed limit?
By invoking Sod's Law, of course.
Conor
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:09:00 -0000, Conor <conor_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4973eff9...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
> >
> >> These cameras don't flash.
> >
> >Here we go again. So are we finally going to get the whole story or is
> >this just a bit of justification?
>
> What whole story?
Whether or not there was a flash. Whether or not the FPNs had already
been received.
Eccles
> In article <4973ef13...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
>
>>> Indeed which is why there's a leeway of 10%+2MPH.
>>
>> For a 30 zone, that would be 35mph. And yet you maintain that 36mph
>> is still too fast to qualify for a speed awareness course?
>>
> Yep. Every post I've ever seen corroborates that.
But not this one.
I got a NIP for doing 38 in a 30 zone in Bristol, with an offer of a speed
awareness course, which I accepted.
Peter
Tony Dragon
Not clutching at straws at all, just wanted to get things straight.
--
Tony the Dragon
Conor
says...
>
> Not clutching at straws at all, just wanted to get things straight.
>
Fair enough. I'm having issues at the moment with this jobless thing so
doing the whole persecuted routine. Just worked out its been 10 weeks
now and that hasn't gone down too well.
Graz
wrote:
>In article <4974823d....@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:09:00 -0000, Conor <conor_...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4973eff9...@news.motzarella.org>, Graz says...
>> >
>> >> These cameras don't flash.
>> >
>> >Here we go again. So are we finally going to get the whole story or is
>> >this just a bit of justification?
>>
>> What whole story?
>
>Whether or not there was a flash. Whether or not the FPNs had already
>been received.
The two FPNs arrived in the post on the same day, approximately 12
days after the first offence. The camera in question does not flash.