Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Aug 17, 2019 14:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Gazette 30th June
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 01:09 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
A few weeks back, I posted that I had triggered the cameras at Ings twice, while below the limit.
Well it has happened since too.

In this weeks Gazette, Kevin Tea admitted that the camera was flashing in error.
The Gazette wrote:
Flash-happy speed camera
PROBLEMS with a flash-happy South Lakeland speed camera have been rectified following a series of complaints from law-abiding road users.
A speed camera located on the A591 road at Ings, between Kendal and Windermere, has been flashing motorists driving within the road’s 40mph speed limit.
However, communications manager for Cumbria Safety Cameras Kevin Tea said that the problem arose as part of a misunderstanding and had now been solved.
“This particular camera is being used to test new technology that is being developed by Redspeed, the company who install the cameras.
“As part of the test procedures, the cameras have been going off when drivers have been going past at speeds under the 40mph limit.
“The only problem was that they left the flash on and we have had people ringing up complaining but we have now told them to take the flash off,” he said.
Mr Tea confirmed that those flashed while obeying the speed limit would not be penalised.

So the camera and it's dodgy flash have been responsible for instilling fear and dread into innocent motorists!
Can they sue for the anxiety and stress caused?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Cumbria Flashers
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 17:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:46
Posts: 27
Given the arrogance of Charlahan and his buddies, hell will freeze over first! Did anything come from the complaints over thier attempts to close Safespeed? Nope. No chance of any other mitigation then.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 17:52 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Quote:
Did anything come from the complaints over thier attempts to close Safespeed?

Is anything still in the pipe on this?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 19:28 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
Quote:
“This particular camera is being used to test new technology that is being developed by Redspeed, the company who install the cameras.


Is the testing of this new technology part of the type approval? I thought all software/firmware had to be approved by the HO and a copy lodged with them?

G


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 17:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
Ernest, why dont you write to Cumbria Constabulary and ask them to investigate CSCP for causing a Public Nuisance... :lol:

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 21:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
Roger wrote:
Quote:
Did anything come from the complaints over thier attempts to close Safespeed?

Is anything still in the pipe on this?


No, it was a 'whitewash'. It seems as though if you are employed by the Cumbria Silly Camera Pratnership then it's quite legal for you to use Cumbria Constabulary headed notepaper to threaten CIVIL proceedings for libel (an entirely civil matter). Presumably, if an employee of the CSCP or Cumbria Constabulary has a dispute over, say, a defective TV, with Currys, he/she can use Cumbria Constabulary letterheads to threaten legal action for a breach of the 'Sale of Goods Act'. What difference is there in principle. The entire thing is a complete disgrace done to keep the cash rolling in whilst making no contribution to real road safety.
The Chief Constable should be ashamed to be the head of such a disreputable organisation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.588s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]