Safe Speed Forums

Ollie - I started off wondering about CO -,but he's a bit more honest than some others ( e.g Greenshed) -and he admits in his sig that cameras don't work . Smell is not so pungent as Greeny and ( IMHO) A BIT MORE HOJEST .

_________________
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

Chaps, may I remind you of the Forum Rules
and apart from don't be rude or insult people,
11. Ad hominem attacks are not allowed. (Ad hominem - Oxford English Dictionery : Of an argument etc.: directed to the individual, personal; appealing to feeling not reason.)
This means that we expect users to attack the argument rather than the poster. Violating this rule will result in a single warning. A repeated violation will result in forum rights being withdrawn, or an immediate ban.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I can only assume that Micktheengineer has failed to appreciate that this is a Trafpol 'pull' and that the officer in question was operating not from a cameravan setup but by himself. But equipment can error read we know this.

Yep definitely as they ought to be able to judge. We need better trained officers who can asses the whole situation and appropriately enforce if necessary.
Got any references ? esp to any paperwork ?
They can and do go wrong, I have seen this for myself many times.
Well it woudl be good to go play with the latest equipment but when I had a go with Paul and Dr Clerk and Ch 4 we got many error readings. and they were not 'silly angles'. It is wrong and very troubling that many maybe loosing their licences for 'error-readings' and not taking them to Court for fear of costs, stress and fines.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Dr. Tan acted as an expert witness for the defence; she pleaded guilty. Don't have a reference sorry.

Stephen, an honest question for you, and please note that I am not trying to trap you, or imply any impropriety on your part, I am merely curious.

You mention that you take two readings and act on the second one. You also very rightly point out that the indicated speed might well be higher in the second reading. If the first reading indicated a speed within the limit, would you still take a second?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Greenshed, how is it that you think a guilty plea in a similar case involving Dr. Tann vindicates the infallibility of your devices? If this is the case then surely the police officer failing to attend court and the case being dropped would prove exactly the opposite!

There is every possibility that the defendant in question was indeed speeding, there is no suggestion that these devices are ALWAYS wrong, nor that they are only ever pointed at drivers driving below the limit. The fact remains that the technology has the potential to indicate erroneously, and as such should not receive absolute credibility in court.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Your imagination and reasoning knows no bounds and follows a strange logic.

Some people had an opinion that the defendant wasn't speeding but had no evidence to support that opinion other than a belief.
All of the evidence said that the defendant was speeding and some of that evidence was interpreted by those that thought otherwise as something that had the potential to cause an error in speed but they were plainly wrong as it didn't.

My imagination is clearly no more fertile than yours. I rather suspect that your position is born of a belief that everyone is guilty, and any defence is simply someone 'trying it on'.

Since you are unable to cite any official documentation on the course of proceedings we only have your word on what has happened, and that has been well proven to be suspect in the past, however, if we accept your account of events there is still no implication there that the devices in question are infallable. I am sure you are not so inept as to truly believe that a guilty plea means anything other than the defendant really was speeding and accepts that, with no implication to the wider veracity of all speedmeter readings, any more than a dropped case (for whatever alleged reason) indicates acceptance that every single speedmeter reading is inaccurate!

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You perhaps missed..."All of the evidence showed that the defendant was speeding" ... including that which did not come from the speedmeter.

Nope, saw that just fine, the problem is your insistance that a speedmeter reading in this case, be it accurate or not, or corroborated or not, makes any comment on the wider veracity of all speedmeter readings.

Perhaps someone else could explain the failings in Greenshed's logic to him, as I seem unable to dumb it down far enough for his understanding, and repeatedly trying to do so using an iPhone keyboard, whilst paying data roaming charges in Poland, is becoming quite tedious!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I think you should pause and find some "evidence" to support your claim rather than some comic demonstrations.

There is where you are wrong again Greenshed, the burden of proof does not lie with me! Perhaps you'd care to cite an official source for your account of events, and also explain to us how you believe they vindicate the universal veracity of your speed measurement devices.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

yet again, greenshed is remarkably selective with what he responds to, isn't he!

viewtopic.php?p=219059#p219059

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

The silence is truly deafening!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

do i thanks for informing me of that

_________________
now retired

OK then, what does your signature mean?

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

i worked for a SCP for 4 years



ahh i see, i had lets say a discussion with a manager about relaxing the restrictions on mobile camera enforcement only to be told no you can only work this tiny miniscule 3% of the road system, elsewhere drivers can do what they like its not in our remit, how can we try to reduce the mean speed if we are leaded down with rules and guidelines and statergy

mmmm dont know what that means

self expanatory

lyrics from take that



take a look at the consequences of speeding

_________________
now retired

Sounds more like the consequences of driving like a pr*ck, of which speeding may be a symptom, but is certainly not the cause!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

The mean speed of any road is rarely above it's speed limit unless it's one of those limits that has been dropped needlessly. E.g. previously a NSL and now 30MPH.

So even if EVERYONE stayed below the speed limit the mean speed isn't going to suddenly come down from being above the speed limit to below it. (unless in the example just given where the speed limit has been needlessly slashed).

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Well yes, overtaking at 72 within a 30, within a residential area, is not just "speeding" is it - It's outright idiocy.

I also doubt there are ~30,000 cases of this kind every year (total K and SI).

CO, why did you use this in your sig? Is this particular case close to you in some way?



Yes, a camera wouldn't have stopped him; trafpol would have.
Don't forget, this campaign is for speed enforcement.

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