Safe Speed Forums

Hi can anyone please let me know how they can get away with braking the law as they are supposed to be enforcing it?

Today I drove past a mobile speed camera. I was doing came round a bend saw the camera, looked down at my Speedo and I was doing 36. I hit the brakes got down to 30 but as you know they record you over a distance, so I know I have had it!!

Anyway, I went home moaned to the family then sat down and give it some thought.

Anyway. my question. it dawned on me that the van was parked totally parked on the pavement, not allowing almost no access for pedestrians. This I have found out is totally illegal and also can carry a fixed fine. So can they enforcer a conviction if they are braking the law? And if they can, How?

Thanks

The answer is simple, they operate on a system of double standards.

Anyway, if your speedo only showed 36 there's every probability you won't get a ticket. Your speedo will over read slightly and they generally don't prosecute for less than 35 in a 30 zone.

They prey on the "used for Police business " get-out" . ,also known as "don't do as I do .................." -which is why public regard for the police is low .

ON the subject of your speed - as said your speedo probably reads high -could be as much as 10% ( thats 3.6mph) , so you might be as low as 32.4MPH ,or as high as 36 .
But then the GUIDELINES ( something they crow about but get ignored whenever it suites them ) says anything over limit +10%+2mph -in a 30 = 35mph.So unless you're very unlucky , as Homer said - you're possibly OK .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

At 36 on the speedo, my GPS says 33, so you may be ok.

It is interesting that the camera vans can flout the law in the dubious enforcement of the law.

Anyone (except emergency responders on call) who drives onto an unmodified pavement (no dropped kerbs - may not withstand vehicle weight) is committing an offence. I can only assume those who block pedestrians are also somehow committing an offence (I don't know of a specific regulation in that regard).
Those rules and penalties apply to motoring public and camera vans alike. Passing plod could have had that driver/camera operator.

However, any evidence of offences of other drivers, gathered while committing their own offence (such as being illegally parked), is still valid evidence.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Having seen how a "Modified pavement is modified , irrespective of dropped kerb ,I'd put money on those that I've seen next to me being less able to withstand vehicle weight than the "unmodified " ones .To me , the bit about needing a dropped kerb ,in light of my observations , is as cameras being about safety ,rather than cash .

The problem is that the vans know that the likelihood of any passing plod is low ,as things like traffic violations take a very low priority .

Some day ,some where in some sane county , some CC looking to build bridges with the public and restore faith in the police ,will send out specials (because he will have no other officers available) to the sites advertised by the vans and hit the drivers with ££££ and POINTS .( Obstruction ,AFAIK carries points as well as ££).
Till then - we have ( as I posted earlier ) situation of "Don't do as I ....................."

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

It is a "public nuisance" in common law. It is also a statuary offence - section 137 of the 1980 Highways Act - to "without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstruct the free passage ...". ' Lawful authority or excuse' means that the person causing the obstruction must be authorised by an Act of Parliament or under a condition under which the highway was dedicated.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Thanks DCB

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Thanks for all your responses I can as most of you have said, cameras are a pain, but the vans are a thieves with flout the law were they like. They also brake the there own rules

The classic is the point that they are meant to only park at known black spot.

I have lived in the area all my life less than one street away, I even went to the school near by. I have never seen or heard of a accident on the road I was on in 30-40 years. (thank God)

It so about time the public could have the chance to say to say enough is enough, we are sick of this!

So the question is - does the Act which authorises the use of these van have anything to say about their positioning. Do you know which Act that is?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I think it will happen one day. As with any disgusting behaviour, it just has to start affecting enough safe drivers and get to screaming pitch before the Gov's ears start to prick up.


Oh and and some from others too

Just quickly on the subject of pavements: I see bikers ride onto a pavement to park in an area of Stratford which, once they are parked, is completely out of harms way on a large pedestrianised part not really used or needed by peds. The authorities or residents don't have an issue with it and has often been said it's a source of interest and colour for people, both old and young

But I believe the offence, to which Police turn a blind eye to is that you cannot ride it on or off the pavement. You can sit astride it and push using leg power or stand beside and push it along but you cannot use the engine, or maybe you can if you are at the side of it - I don't know. (Maybe you have something there dcb, to help clarify please?)

It’s all a bit vague but I do know of someone who got a fixed fine for riding on the pavement, and there wasn't a problem with having the bikes there, it's just that he could do it but just not under engine power.

So presumably the police van you saw on the pavement was driven on it, not pushed by half a dozen boys in blue..

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

They have to park within a certain distance of a blackspot. So if Devil's Hairpin has a nice overtaking straight half a mile away (plus preferably a nice low speed limit), the camera van will sit on the nice long straight using the blackspot nearby as justification.

The speed limit can be enforced anywhere the person who deploys them deems it necessary.

There is no law or direction that make the ONLY place they can be deployed where there have been collisions.

That used to be a direction of the DfT during the Safety Camera Programme, it is no longer a direction so needs not be followed.

You should all get over the collision site as it is dead (ooops, sorry about that!)

I don't think that's the question, just as well as I don't know the answer to it anyway

HOWEVER

I have just remembered a recent article saying something about camera Smart cars being deployed to enforce double yellows - they were are somehow exempt from that rule because of "special dispensation". So things may not be as clear cut as I stated.
However again, the evidence gathered will still stand.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Correct. The requirements governing 'cost recovery' were ended April '07.


A level of 'direction' still exists. The previous requirement was downgraded to a 'recommendation' and is generally still followed (cue recent references of 'they won't place a speed camera here until there have been xx injuries')

RTTM isn't dead yet!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

So, enforcement even more divorced from safety then.

If you give a man enough rope he will hang himself Although I think GS bought the rope too with his last comment.

It's like putting handcuffs on me because my neighbour is a burglar...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

We could start a new section on this ,something like the caption contest - using the sayings of chairman meow , a prize to the person who comes up with the most comical translation of the sayings .

Like equating to "Where we can get the most cash in one day " .

I leave the rest of the quotation to others .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

_________________
now retired

You laugh - I've seen a post on PH,where the van drives across a pavement , and a greenfield site to hide .Are the operators that pushed to justify their jobs . And in that sort of area - how long before we start to see yobs being persuaded that vans in the woods need to feel the heat .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on