Safe Speed Forums

I drove by a lay by at 80 in a 60mph speed area. There was no cameras but i saw a single flash. Do you think i have been caught by the police? I have been told that the gun does not take pictures and that if it is a police car then they normally chase you and stop you. I have also been told a double flash means that you have been caught and a single is just a warning. I was thinking it might have been the van although when i went back i never seen it. Can anyone shed some light on this. Much appriciated

i can think of other activities that might take place in laybys requiring a camera

lol dirty mind lol. it was pitch black so i couldnt see if there was anything but all i seen was a flash do u think it was the police?

others will be able to say more definitively.

apart possibly from a temporary gatso in the lay by i don't think any other speed enforcement would flash you. and even then twice, and would need appropriate markings on the road.

and not wanting to preach i'll leave it to you to decide whether 80mph was a safe speed for that road on that night in those conditions.

There is deffinatley not a temporary speed camera up there. The only other thing it could have been was a van. Does the van flash? Yeah 80 was way to fast lesson learnt even if i dont get caught. Total idiot.

Edit :- Just been told that there are 2 cameras at that area. I got one flash does that mean a warning? I got told 2 flashes is caught 1 flash is a warning. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

Goodness me, we seem to be getting a lot of people posting in this section at the moment.

Firstly, since this is a public forum which the authorities are known to read, I think you'll find that you might have driven at 80mph, and that you don't definitively recall your speed.

The short answer to your question is that you'll just have to wait until around 17 days after the incident. If nothing arrives by post to the car's registered address in that time, then you're safe. (If you were renting the car or it's a company car, you'll have to wait longer to see if whoever owns the car has received anything.)

It sounds unlikely that anything will come of it, but no-one here will be able to tell you for sure. You're right that it wouldn't have been police as they would have come after you, so if it was anyone, it was your local "safety" camera partnership with a mobile van (by "there was no cameras" I assume you meant that there are no fixed cameras at the location).

What area are you in? Was the stretch of road busy at the time that you were on it? (If not, the scammers would be unlikely to set up shop there, because it wouldn't be profitable.) Most mobile equipment doesn't flash, but some does I believe (e.g. the mobile GATSO that ed_m refers to). The "single flash being a warning" thing wouldn't apply to any mobile camera, so you can disregard that (I believe it applies to some old fixed GATSOs when they're out of film, but even then it's not really a warning as such).

Basically, don't worry about it. All you can do is wait, and you'll probably be fine. But please can you do us a favour and tell us what (if anything) came of this? Far too often people come on here, start topics like this, receive advice and then never update us (or even thank us sometimes). Frankly it's rather irritating and selfish. We give our time and effort to help people, and all we ask in return is that they take a minute to keep us in the loop so that the forum (and people who are prosecuted in the future) can benefit from the resulting knowledge. I think that's more than fair; people shouldn't expect to get free advice and then just bugger off. We're not here to provide free legal services to complete strangers when they're going to do absolutely nothing to help us back, and every time that happens, fewer of us bother to help the next poor victim (or potential victim) of the cash cameras.

Hope this helps anyway. And welcome, and thanks for posting (really! )

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Cheers pal yeah a will keep you updated after 17 days

Nice one. Appreciate it. Good luck.


ed_m wasn't (I don't think) implying that your speed was dangerous when he said "I'll leave you to decide". 80 in a 60 can be safe, and I would hope that if you were (hypothetically) doing that speed, you thought it safe at the time. If you did, there's no need to pretend otherwise on here. (If you didn't, we all make mistakes; the trick is to learn from them.)

You may well be used to being bombarded with sanctimonious, idiotic, simplistic attitudes towards "speeding", particularly in the media, but people here are much less self-righteous and much more realistic (with one or two exceptions....) We know that numbers in themselves prove very little: 70 on a motorway could be lethal (if traffic is stopped ahead and the driver hasn't seen it), whereas 90 in a temporary 30 on a dual carriageway could be safe.

One day, everyone will realise how counterproductive the obsession with "speeding" is, and even the most stubborn camera supporter (including those who only support cameras because they like to see motorists suffer*) will have to admit that cameras don't work, and find some different way of controlling other people.

--
* In case anyone's wondering, these people really do exist, much as I wish they didn't. Anyone who is not convinced of their existence from reading the relevant cycling forums, and the spoutings in the media of many of the car-hating extremists who disproportionately influence current policy, can look on page 4 of this document (an excellent read anyway):

The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility.

All such, err, "people" are bound to have an unshakeable support of cameras, which cannot be dispelled by road safety-related reasoning. Some of these "people", naming no names, are bound to find their way onto cycling forums, and some of them, again naminghjeg2no names, are likely to come here and cause trouble. Road safety is not their priority (i.e. controlling people is more important to them than reducing accidents), and all of them, by dint of not admitting their prejudices against cars if nothing else, are liars. In general, I don't want to have anything to do with people like that, and I rather wish they would go and form their own hellish, draconian state somewhere and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy and appreciate the freedoms that we're absolutely entitled to.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Thats 18 days and still no letter so do you think i will be ok?

You should be safe as they are suppose to send the NIP out within 14 days to the registered keeper, so if you are the registered keeper then you should be Ok.

Thanks for the update.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.