Safe Speed Forums

Which is where you'll find the Rights of Way Officer I mentioned in my previous post.

That said, I've seen some even sneakier scameras on a bridge over the M5 southbound near Tiverton on Friday afternoon. Two tripod-mounted cameras, one each over lanes 2 & 3, with the van nowhere in sight but the cables angled towards the eastern side of the bridge. The hardware blended in with the bridge railings so that you couldn't see that the cameras were there until it was too late.

I thought that partnership units had to be clearly marked and visible. If so, this was either a scameratsi unit breaking the rules, or proper plod. However, I thought that D&C, Somerset and Avon constabularies had all passed speed enforcement to their local scameratsi chapters.

_________________
Will

Interestingly, I saw tripod mounted cameras on a bridge over the M3 south of Basingstoke on Friday. I think these were ANPR units though related to the security for the Fleet Review on Tuesday. These were as described with no visible van and looked like a camera unit with a lamp arrangement attached to one side. There were 3 - one for each lane.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I have the misfortune of just receiving an offence notice for the Wendover Bypass on the reverse of which it states

ALL MOBILE VEHICLES ARE CLEARLY LIVERIED WITH REFLECTIVE MARKINGS AND PARKED WHERE MOTORISTS CAN SEE THEM

I am responding to request that I am informed as to what was the EXACT location of the

CLEARLY LIVERIED WITH REFLECTIVE MARKINGS PARKED WHERE MOTORISTS CAN SEE THEM

If it transpires that it was not parked in such a way how then can it be legally enforceable?????!!!!!

The photos already posted on this forum would indicate that if it was in the same location then it certainly was not clearly visible

Thanks
What is your opinion

Oraczen, I was once caught speeding on my motor bike, the camera was hidden behind a mound on the side of the road and I was caught before I saw the camera. Unfortunately I accepted the £60 pound and the 3 penalty points. If I had known about this site and others before, I would definitely have pleaded not guilty. If I where you I would have a look at this site and post your question in the forums there. They will give you free advice on what to do.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

PePiPoo is a good site and you should go there.
However, IIRC the visibility rules only apply to the netting off scheme allowing the camera partnership to keep the 60 quid for themselves, the evidence is still valid.

However if it was the same site as my photographs, I would look into the power lines running very close to where the van is. ACPO guidelines tell them not to park by power lines so presumably the equiment is susceptable.

You are welcome to use my photographs if you want, but I doubt they'll be admisssible as they're digital.

I used digital photos in my case, and they were accepted by the court. They were printed out previously, and were not challenged by the prosecution as being reliable. I'm not sure whether it was the right thing to do or not, but I had previously disclosed them to the prosecution, so it would have been easy for them to disprove them if they had have been modified in any way (Which of course they were not).

However, the power lines issue is more likely to persuade the court than the fact that they were not obvious. They are actually allowed to hide in bushes with camoflauge paint, and use the evidence in a prosecution. And they are still allowed to 'net it off'. It's just that they have to stick to the rules most of the time, in order to allow them to be 'naughty' some of the time...

I to have been 'done' by this camera van

What beggars belief is that in the correspondence that I have received they state that all of their vehicles are clearly liveried and parked where motorists can see them.

This is clearly not true when the vehicle is parked overhead and behind trees/ walls as seemingly this one was. I didnt see it and I need an explantion from TVP as to the exact location of the vehicle that zapped me.

I actually (now know mistakenly) thought that the road was 70 ..my reported speed was 73 .

In such circumstances I would have thought the police would be far better off educating me

But the primary issue here is that seemingly the written words in the corresondence about visibility are a downright lie

To me (naively?) the purpose should be to further alert motorits to the opinion of the TVP that the road location is one they consider to be dangerous ....obviously it has not been dangerous enough to enable them to obtain approval for a fixed camera. In such circumstances teh van should be clearly visible from at least 100 metres

I have always been a careful driver and as I say I made the mistake of thinking it was 70 (there are no speed limits signs) I do not believe that I was doing 73 .

The national road limits need revising anyhow because they are actually causing accidents !!! You know...you are driving along at 30 in a 30 with somebody right up behind you and they are deperate to overtake... when they do they are more likely to be involved in an accident.

This is my first offence with a clean license for over 30 years and all the TVP have done is made me totally disillusioned with their behaviour especially when I combine that with their disinterest when my wife was the victim of a personal crime a few years ago.

Welcome to the, "You've been scammed Club."

I have has a clean licence for 22 years and have been accused of speeding. I know I was not but the LTI 20-20 is telling its little fibs,

Try posting on Pepipoo for some help. http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2

You can always put in an official complaint against the camera operator for hiding, knowing that he should not be. He must know what it says on your NIP about visibility etc. Be warned though that these people are quite vindictive as most of them have been civilianised against their will, and are rather bitter and twisted (well you have to be to hide in a van and tell tale on people), so it may go against you in court. The Magistrates courts are part of the partnership rememeber.

Good luck with it

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

In my very humble opinion the positioning of this van stinks, as a self confessed supporter of speed cameras I think such underhand methods serve only to p:ss off any driver caught out by them and undermine the 'accident black spot' message that cameras SHOULD give.

Having said that, you have been driving for over 30 years and thought that the speed limit on a single carriageway road was 70 mph. Notwithstanding arguments in favour of this particular road being safe at such a speed, your assumption in this case was wholly wrong - NSL on a single carriageway is, and always has been, 60mph.

I may get flak for this but I believe in this case you WERE in the wrong and you have highlighted a gap in your knowledge. Still don't think the camera position is fair though.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Picky mode - except when it was 50mph Doesn't change your point, but I seem to have run into more people who convinced it's still 50mph nearly twenty years on than I do people who think it's 70. I wonder if it wouldn't be a hell of a lot clearer to ditch the sign if it means different things to different people. There wouldn't be any confusion over what meant.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Replacing the signs has pros and cons the pros are that the muppets who think it's 60 on a dual and 50 on a single might speed up (though I doubt it) the cons are that if we ever manage to get the limits raised, we would have to wait for every council to replace the signs, and you can bet the likes of Oxfordshire would take their sweet time about it, if they bothered at all.

thanks for the clarification (perhaps I should have said "is, and has never been any higher than, 60mph").

Perhaps some of the money raised from speeding fines should pay for public information films that would be of some use (rather than the ones that seem to annoy more people than they help). I would suggest a series of advert types such as:

National Speed Limit - what it means
Yellow Box Junctions without tears
Lane Discipline - myth or mystery?
Pedestrians - how to use roads safely!
Cyclists - Red lights are also for you, pavements aren't!

I'm sure there is a whole raft of these things!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

No, it was 70 mph between 1965 and 1973, and unlimited before 1965.

The general idea of having high-profile public information campaigns on various safety-related themes (not just speed and drink, as at present) is a good one, though

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

third (and final) try: "is, and hasn't been since 1973 any higher than, 60mph"

I didn't include the pre-1965 element cos I sort of considered unlimited = no limit. Anyway that is semantics.


oooh, a thought occurs, I wasn't aware single carriageway NSL was ever 70, the guy who I picked up on has been driving for 30+ years, perhaps when he learnt to drive the SC NSL was 70mph.

Sobering thought, we all learnt to drive at a certain time and we probably all keep in memory some facts from that time. Without a continuous learning requirement for drivers, there is a chance we'll never learn when new or changed regulations come into force. (A good example for me is the variable limits on the motorway, a friend didn't think any electronic sign carried a legal weight and thus you couldn't get a speed fine for it).

maybe continuous learning should be a mandatory requirement?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

To my mind there is a subtle difference in meaning between an NSL sign and a 60 sign. The NSL sign means “you have now left a restricted area. There is no specific speed limit on this road, but the default national limit applies. It may well not be safe to travel at that speed.” Whereas a 60 sign carries a stronger implication that 60 is, broadly speaking, a safe speed for that road. A 60 sign for a small country lane would convey a less appropriate message than an NSL one.

This would also raise the question of having to put up signs every time there was a transition from a single to a dual carriageway.

When the Irish changed their speed limits to metric last year, they dropped the NSL sign, but they also cut the default speed limit on rural roads from 60 mph to 80 km/h (about 50 mph), although 100 km/h (62 mph) is permitted on National roads (roughly equivalent to our primary route network). As I understand it, the Irish have repeaters (albeit not very frequent ones) on 100 km/h roads – the “default” rural limit is 80 km/h.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

But means different things to different classes of vehicle...

That said we don't have a consistent system right now because (for example) a single carriageway road posted as still has a mph limit for vehicles drawing multiple trailers and a mph speed limit for vehicles over 7.5t...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I hadn't forgotten that. HGVs most obviously would still have to go slower, but perhaps I should have gone further and repeated the idea that the 40 restriction doesn't do us any favours. I was thinking that if were to be replaced with it would apply to all normal vehicles rather than this 2+ tier system we have now, with the obvious understanding that if the driver of a certain vehicle type doesn't feel that 60 is safe for his vehicle (say HGV on a windy day) he won't try to keep up with the car ahead doing 60 (or 70 if that's what's safe for him ).


Yes, again good point as far as things are now. We couldn't chuck the signs away without addressing other things first, and I didn't mean to imply that we could. Obviously we'd need to first sort out whether we really need the vehicle class limits as they are at the moment, and also, to address this specific point, get drivers away from driving by the numbers in the lollipops.

Sorry I didn't explain myself properly earlier but to clarify, if some of the Safe Speed manifsto became reality we might be able to ditch the signs. But right now we're in no position to do that.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

My, this has drifted a long way from the charlatans who started this thread by creepy van positioning!

In the final analysis, the scam vans are the problem.

How about using some of the money from the tax on fuel to promote road safety by offering a film to the partnerships of how the real Traffic Police were successfully bringing down road casualties until the scamerati reversed it! We could call it, "Safety! not Cash!"

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

Have just been reading the Dept of Transport guidlines

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 24064.hcsp

I am not convinced that TVP operating on Wendover bypass are acting in accordance with the guidelines

Especially

"mobile speed camera users must be highly visible by wearing fluorescent clothing and their vehicles marked with reflective strips"

I most certainly did not see them so therefore they were not highly visible

More importantly though "Cameras must be visible from 60 metres away in 40mph or less areas and 100 metres for all other limits " They were not visible at all. They were completely invisible ...I assume hiding on the bridge as another member has suggested

The rest of the guidelines are interesting too especially about cameras behind hedges and trees.

It also says "covert operations can in exceptional circumstances be allowed but must be recorded by the partnership"

I am still involved in "discussion" with TVP but if at the end of the day I end up with my first 3pts and a fine I will absoutely make a formal complaint to the Police Complaints Authority since in no way were TVP complying with the DT visibility guidelines.

I still do not believe that I was doing the speed they say I was and am awaiting info from them ..picture and type of equipment used and I want to know the exact location of the police vehicle. There was that 2 page article in Saturdays Daily Mail whereby it proved conclusively that a particular type of laser camera is not accurate