Safe Speed Forums

I've read all the above with interest and have written to the Home office who say they've never heard of Dr Tanns Case re the Camera giving a faulty reading ! A spokesperson in the Northumberland Authority told me that 'a camera' cannot be said to not be 'capable of error'. If this was the case as it appears to be Country wide then why on earth is there not an urgent review of the whole situation ???? before almost all drivers loose faith in the system.
I have good advice that there are some cameras that have been found to give false evidence irrespective of whether this has or has not been caused by the opperator & yet there are many Courts and Authorities who continue to prosecute wherever possible and still persist in being adamant that the camera is infallible.
The owner of the Company who supplies the cameras even apparently admits that it is possible for the camera to make a mistake (although not often!)
It is worth reading the cases in which Dr Michael Clark has been involved in for educational purposes at least.

Unitil there is a review of of the cameras that seem to be prone to error especially one that seems popular with the Authorities --LTI 20/20 Ultrlite 100 injustices will happen. If the time factor in this wonderful Country is any thing to go by why have the speed limits in Nottingham brought in 1953 still remain the same -mostly without review???

Be careful what you wish for. All reviews are a downwards ratchet.

Take the example of my village. Under the Government directed review which was recently undertaken by the local council, they found that the 40mph limits on approach to the village centre (which is rightly 30mph) should be increased to 50 mph. The outcry from the Parish Council was deafening.

It is pretty much impossible to get a limit raised to a realistic level.

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

it is yes, but dont part with any hard earned money, Lee, Clark, Luxford, and the others , once you dissect the theorys and myths, only one part leaves with a profit, thats not me you so only one other



in a way yes, no doubt the are hundreds more out there



no RTTM, it happens steve on a daily basis, some get away with it others dont, maybe the driver thought it was a safespeed to drive at for the conditions, so much money who cares what i do

_________________
now retired

Yes, for drunk driving, drugged driving, distracted driving, unlicensed, joyriding, not looking before crossing the road...
(I do know what you mean, but you must also see my point too)


You're not being facetious are you


If that was the case then the system failed him.
Being realistic: there's no way any sane person could call overtaking at 72, in a residential 30, safe at all.

If I can quote the "Safe Speed Highway Code In 100 Words":

That chap kinda did the opposite to practically all those points (except perhaps one).

The case you refer to isn't a good example of the need for cameras ( do it better) or limit reductions (was blatantly ignored anyway).


Believe it or not, we do want the same thing: @@s like that off the road
Anyway, this is all wildly off topic...

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

No. I'm the one who sounds my horn BEFORE I get to the van. They are a menace together with those who operate them.