Safe Speed Forums

I think we need a new thread to name and shame bad behaviour among the scamerati. For example:

I was driving home yesterday on the A322 from bracknell to the M3. The A322 is a dual carriage way which (just as you enter surrey) has the speed limit cut from NSL (70mph) to 50mph. There is no real reason for this reduction as there are as many hazards in the 70 zone as the 50. The road has good surfacing and is well laid out. As I crested the top of the hill (less than 200yds into the 50 zone) I spot the poortly marked talivan parket up on the side of the road at the bottom. I was doing about 60 and braked sharply to get to 50. A few seconds later the car in front and the cars next to me did the same. Instantly our safe following distance is consumed and we all tailgate past at 49mph.

Why is this poor behaviour for the scamerati?

- they choose a location with minimal advanced siting due to the crest of the hill
- they choose a location that is only just in the 50 zone
- the 50 limit is well below the 85th percentile
- they choose a 'descretely' marked van - no speed camera signs just a few high vis chevrons on the back.
- they choose to be at the bottom of the hill to maximise the chances of people creeping above their trigger speed.

Surrey Scamerati have been running for less than 60 days and already they are employing dirty trick and rotten tactics.

I love that bit of the A322 as a textbook example of how inconsistent and mindless limits have become. You can go past the Out & Out on the single carriageway A30 at a perfectly legal 60mph and have to slow to 50 when joining the A322 dual carriageway . IIRC the 50 limit was appeared when the bridge was being repaired and sneakily stayed put afterwards. They also didn't cut back the bloody bushes when they changed the lollipops on the northbound slip road, so the first I knew about it was seeing the first repeater had been changed to - fortunately no Talivan that day. Oh, and by the way, be careful going towards Bracknell as well. There's sometimes a talivan on the straight uphill 70mph stretch waiting for anyone who got frustrated with the 50 bit and gets a little too much lead in their boot.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

what about a forum thread where we can post examples and possibly pictures/video of transgressions by the scammerati?

Compile a dossier and dare the authorities to prosecute?

I think its got to be a war of attrition, something new every week.

last week M4 cameras, next week illegal parking etc etc.

Sounds good to me.

Digital cameras are pretty cheap now and many mobile phones have one built in so it would be easy enough.

How about it?

The only problem with complaining about this legalised theft policy in the manner you're talking about is this...

1 No one other than the chief of the thief force has the right to demand who was driving / in control of one of these vehicles at any particular time.

2 I can't see the chief thief 'dopping in' his main moguls. The people who organise these types of mass theft efforts need their squalid little servants... And we all know in practice that the thief force is above the law!

They shouldn't but they do act with impunity. They don't give two monkeys about 'ordinary' people - provided they get their cut. These people are there to extract money from us. This is nothing to do with safety and everything to do with extorting cash from us.

They don't know how to organise catching rapists, muggers, burglars and con-men. They don't even know how to catch drunks on the roads anymore. But they certainly know how to develop 35mm film, don't they???

And when all of us are on 9points (or more) and videoing our speedos at no more than 25 miles an hour, with alarms in our cars that sound as we approach 26mph, etc, etc - then these thieving bastards will get the limits put down to 20 mph.

Face it, people, these people only want you to bring your wallet!



Like I say, I used to be a "reasonable man" but if they want to tell me I am a criminal, then I might as well act like one and vent all these anti-social opinions about them. Let's face it - what do we need the police for???? FACT - when I lived in London, I witnessed close hand a black man beating and kicking his black girl friend in the street (not that being black had anything to do with it as such). I called 999 on my mobile phone and gave the exact street and doornumber outside which this was happening. After the guy had torn half this poor girl's hair out of her head, he then threatened me with "cutting me up in pieces"!!!! After 70 odd minutes (after this bloke had walked off, literally still cussing me and kicking his girlfriend in the stoimach as she laid on the floor), I walked to the nearest Police Station to ask them, rather facetiously, whether they worked at weekends after 6pm. All the arsehole in the nick was interested in telling me was "Ask me another stupid question like that again and I'll nick you!"

Yes I did write in - yes, I and the poor girl both had a local inspector come to apologise. But there is something very, very, very wrong here. So where were the 'calvary' when needed then, eh? Setting a nice speed trap up somewhere to nick some poor unsuspecting motorist doing 38 in a 30 at 7:30 on a sunny Saturday evening???

Police force?? Fair judicial system??? My arse! Who are these wankers trying to kid. They just want our money. It's all about cash and real police work goes down the pan.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

Is venting as far as you'll go? What if 'they' impose the 20mph limit? Then what?

Like many of the new faces here I've never protested before but there comes a point. It looks like more and more people are reaching it.

Like I've said elsewhere, I basically think I should emigrate and leave far behind me this hell-hole.

What's next??? Are they going to want money when you stop 2 or 3 inches beyond the stop line at a junction? (It is technically illegal, after all).

I hope they do read these forums - I hope it gives them a damned good laugh: But I swear that I will never 'help' the police again.

Kiddie gone missing??? Some murder or another??? Yes mate, my 7 or 8 mph infraction has cost them the warmth from my heart. I hope they enjoy spending their sixty quid - the product of their immoral earnings. There is currently nothing other than bitterness that these power-pissed arseholes are overstepping the mark with what I would call reasonable policing. We are supposed to be policed by consent - not by the Gestapo!

And if you hadn't caught my drift by now - yes I am angry that I feel this way about matters. I am angry that I have been so poorly treated (as in a lack of respect for me as an individual - I 'm sure most reasonable people understand exactly what I mean) that I've reached the stage of venting in the way I have.

I have no more right to break the law than anyone else... But I am FAIR. I treat other people FAIRLY & REASONABLY and I expect to be treated likewise. Not like some sort of wallet to be filched and milked over an 'offence' which is minor in nature - so minor, in fact, I can't even remember anything about it in the first place! Obey the (speed) law? I thought I was! But you can't argue with pieces of paper.... And like I say, I have to accept that I have no more rights than anyone else to break the law... But until they do bring back physical torture and reincarnate Hitler, then I will air the fact that I carry very, very, very bad blood about this.

We are supposed to be policed by consent. Yes I broke the law - I certainly didn't take the piss when I did so - not to the extent these scam thieving bastards are doing to me, that's for sure. And if they think I'm going to publicly tell them I think their shit smells of roses then they have another thing coming!

Well, boys in Blue: I have no antecedents, I have made at least 6 'citizen's arrests' in my time, stopped at accidents to hep out where and when I could and been your eyes and ears WHEN IT MATTERS on the streets. I even once compromised my own safety in allowing the CID to use my home on a drugs stake out about 20 years ago.

Like I say, enjoy your sixty quid, because unless I make a call to help ME, I will never dial 999 again, I will never stap at an accident site again, I will never make notes of anything suspicious again.

If and when I do something wrong (and I mean what most reasonable people would call 'wrong'), I expect to be punished... And I will accept such punishment like a man. This? I don't think using the law to steal off of me endears or impresses me.

Tell that to your chief inspectors and camera scammers if they want to listen - and if they don't - well one day, I'm sure I will put into practice the product of the anger and anguish I have highlighted here.

***Just to clarify for those who want to draw the wrong conclusions from my anguished comments *** I mean I intend to save it for that moment when I can tell someone from the thief-force to "re-arrange these two words into a well know phrase" I have no intention of doing anything criminal damage wise to any of their instuments of cash extraction because, as a 'dissenter' and one not prepared to grovel as preferred by the chief of the thief force, I don't want to waste my life in some sort of concentration camp (prison).

No, no, no: Much better to let others do that sort of stuff and me to sit and larf about it.... They might be able to punish me for what I do, even what I say - but they can't do me for believing they're nothing more than a bunch of glorified Gestapo, abusing the law for their own sadistic and financial pleasure.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

what they say and what they do are very different.

For example I found this document

http://www.surreypa.gov.uk/docs/May04/2 ... oolbox.doc

drafted by Superintendent Sue Warren, Head of Operational Support, surrey police where they state their plans for the speed camera partnership.

key highlights:

they say: Surrey Police and SCC have been led by research that suggests that activity and action along ‘routes’ and identified ‘hubs’, is more productive than the limited areas of focus under the previous localised ‘black spot’ and ‘red zone’ schemes.

my Comment: so it's not about black spots then? what do they mean by 'productive' cash cows would be more appropriate

They say:The analysis tends to indicate that some of the collisions on these sites were not caused by excess speed. However a general reduction in the speed of vehicles along these routes would be a contributor to reduced casualties.

my comment: some according to the table speeding in 9th on the chart at just 3%. a more honest claim would be 97% of accidents not due to speeding! But interestingly they go on to say speed reduction should be done anyway

They say: Surrey Police is keen to ensure that enforcement thresholds are targeted to detect ‘top end’ speeds and persistent offenders, not to alienate the average motorist.

my comment: well given my above scenario, I don't think policing newly lowered roads within 300m of the limit change, by hidding at the bottom of the hill is focusing on 'top enders'.

they say: There are no plans to expand on the list of sites that are currently being investigated. By the time the work is concluded it may well be the case that there are fewer fixed-site cameras in the county than there are at present . A number of the existing sites are at locations which fall short of the criteria for netting-off sites and the highway authority (SCC) will need to consider removing them to locations where there are problems and a camera is the correct provision. If a camera proves to be successful then it is potentially the case that it would be removed as its purpose would have been achieved although, as you appreciate, that cannot be taken as read. However, future collision patterns and causation factors may well mean that, as well as sites 'falling off', that other sites may well fall within the criteria.

they new partnership has different plans:
http://www.surrey-safecam.org

I think...

If it waddles, goes quack, and looks like a duck.

Then it probably is a duck.

If it seems like speed cameras are being ABused looks and feels like a scam where the State is engaged in legalised theft.

Then if probably is legalised theft.


I know, I know! People like me who drive with both eyes on the road most of the time rather than both eyes on the speedo most of the time, who don't have accidents and are actually quite safe, should just be quiet and make sure I bring a full wallet.

Three twenties - that'll do for now if I want to be quiet about it. Sorry boys, I don't want to keep quiet while the state steals off of me - I ain't gonna accept this quietly like some sort of lamb to the slaughter.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.