Safe Speed Forums

Peanut Butter on toast !!!!, how awful !!!!

With all the lamp posts shown in the picture, it should not be too difficult to accurately relocate where the camera was. If it is on grass and they are there quite often, then you will be able to see the tracks where they normally park, or it might be quite obvious where it was, such as in a lay-by. With a bit of luck you may see the camera van there again, so keep a camera with you so you can get a snap of it.

Don't get yourself run over in taking the measurements. You will at least need a good tape measure but you obviously can't use that accross a busy highway, or borrow an LTI 20.20 for the measurement. Otherwise you may be able to get accurate maps/plans of the road layout off the website of you local county council.

You haven’t lived I love it, especially with the crunchy butter – yum


So long as there’s a safety camera van there you should be fine

I'm with Smeggy. Peanut butter on toast is way cool. The Americans are inclined to add jam and that's even cooler. Marmalade and peanut butter on toast is a personal favourite.

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

It ok if you eat it with a teaspoon (in joke)

No need for all of that. I have Google Satellite Maps (as everyone has). Will post a picture soon.

I know exactly where the speed camera van was (as I said, I went slowly past it on my way back home half an hour later).
The pictures I took are taken from the location of the van, using a 10x zoom. I will be back on the spot tomorrow to take some more pictures.

Here is a satellite picture with, in the red spot, the camera van, and in the blue spot, my car.

The lamp post n'49 is the one I was approaching as the camera took a snap of me, just before the bus stop.

For any of you whishing to explore and zoom in on the area on google maps with the satellite too, here is the link:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=RG12+9SE&t=k&ll=51.404815,-0.747135&spn=0.003159,0.013475&t=k

If you download Google Earth, it also comes with a 'divider tool' so you can measure distance on the map.

edited

The site being monitored was the northbound carriageway, which as you can see from the satellite pictures (I have verified on the field) has the white lines typical of speed cameras on the road surface.
I was travelling on the southbound carriageway.
As we know, the operator must be within 10 feet of the carriageway where the "site" being monitored is.
The "site" is the bus stop on the northbound carriageway. The camera van was parked outside the shell garage, in a lay-by, on the side of the northbound carriageway.
We also know that the code of practice says that a "site" cannot be in both directions if it is a dual-carriageway or a motorway.
Hence, the operator was not legally autorised to monitor the southbound carriageway from his position.
And, yes, there are a few lamp posts to be dodged.
I stay behind my reasoning that the operator saw a black sportscar and decided to take a chance at it. Unfortunately, I was not speeding, and his reading may well have been affected by the positioning of his gun.
If the operator decided I was speeding when I past him way before the "site", how come I have a safe distance to the car in front, and a not so safe distance to the bus behind?

So, is it in order that the camera van was:
1) parked far away (more than 10 feet, infact more like 30 feet) away from the carriageway
2) was monitoring a "site" on a dual carriageway in both directions?

If you say it is, please highlight where in the ACPO and the SCP guidelines it says it is.

What was gun - only ask coz i thought dodgyscope had limitations if more than one vehicle -

_________________
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

fnegroni reported that he won this case on another thread.
makes interesting reading

fnegroni.... It takes a lot of bottle... Well done... now drink and claim costs
PS: I was right :

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Anton could you please provide the link to the thread ?

Doc, I think it was this thread he was refering to, this is the link to the thread where he says he won his case but the last post sends you back to this thread.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 0&start=20

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

*bump*

Thought I'd bump this up in light of tonight's ITV program "Tonight" about speed cameras, LTI2020 and wrong convictions.

http://www.itv.com/news/tonight_1253db3 ... 31b1e.html

I watched the program, and it is available on DVD for anyone who missed it.

Quite a few anomolies were shown, but the most outrageous had to be the stationary vehicle doing 42mph, and the car travelling at 15mph that was doing 36mph according to the LTI 2020.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

not seen it , have you a link, i would demand the scammers to show how they can make a stationary vehicle travel at 42mph

I missed it!! God only knows how I forgot, as I've been looking forward to it through all it's postponements!! Does anyone know if it will be repeated, or if ITV have a 'watch again' service anywhere? PMs welcome.

I'm busy for all of today, but I'll rip the DVD tomorrow and upload the video somewhere.

The stationary vehicle was recorded at 42mph because it got caught in the beam pattern of the target vehicle. As far as the gun was concerned, this was a legitimate speed reading and no error was shown.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?