Safe Speed Forums

The officer was caught out by the controversial mobile speed camera on the A179 Easington Road near the University Hospital of Hartlepool.
And now he is prepared to go to court to dispute the ticket which was issued after he was caught in his unmarked police car travelling at 35mph in a 30 zone.
He also received a £60 fine and had three points put on his licence.
The officer, from Durham Constabulary, who did not wish to be named, said he was on his way to interview the victim of a crime who was being treated at Hartlepool Hospital.
''I was issued with a ticket saying I was travelling at 35mph, but I am taking legal advice," said the officer.
However, those responsible for the camera have insisted that police officers and any other members of the emergency services should not be above the law.
Mick Bennett, public relations manager for the Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership, said: "Whenever a police vehicle is caught by a camera, the force is notified and asked to provide an explanation. If that explanation is not satisfactory then a fine is issued."
He added: "There is not a law for one and a law for another. If there is a genuine reason why the emergency services are breaking the speed limit, such as answering an emergency call, then they are protected by law. But if not, they are treated the same way as anyone else.
"We have given fines to police cars, ambulances and fire engines in the past as they can kill people too."
Neither Durham Police nor the Police Federation were willing to comment on the matter.
The mobile camera has caught thousands of people in recent years including 1,500 in the space of just four hours on the A179.
A stretch of that road has come under fire from Hartlepool councillors, who have called for the speed limit to be increased to 40mph.
However, officers at Hartlepool Borough Council are recommending that the speed limit remains unchanged because of its good accident record and because pedestrians would find it harder to cross if traffic was moving at a faster speed.
Councillors will consider the report at a meeting of the culture, housing and transportation porfolio tomorrow.

but on the other hand if the ticket was pulled no doubt everyone would say that it was ok,

if he was not on an immediate response what is the difference

He deserves a ticket as much as any other person would who was caught in those circumstances. I totally agree with treating him like everyone else.

Whether everyone should be getting tickets based solely on them doing 35 in a 30 zone is another matter.

He deserves a ticket as much as any other person would who was caught in those circumstances. I totally agree with treating him like everyone else.

The difference as I see it, Gatsobait, is one of necessity. The chap who was supposedly testing the new police car managed to argue that it was necessary to drive at the speeds he did, as he might need to do that in an emergency.

I don't agree that they should ask whether or not he was safe, unless you are advocating that this should apply in all speeding cases.

The problem is that it is close to impossible to determine whether it was truly safe, or whether the driver is incurring an increase in risk of 0.00000000001% that will, over large numbers of examples of drivers incurring the same miniscule increase in risk, increase the accident rate.

I would have said going to see a victim of crime in hospital at 35mph is arguably of at least as much value to society, and therfore a necessity.

I don't think the test is a realistic one. No speed is ever "truly safe" as in absolutely zero risk to anyone.

That's not the test I'm suggesting, the test is whether there is an increase in risk, no matter how small, compared to driving at the speed limit.

but who says driving AT the speed limit is safe in the first place?

but who says driving AT the speed limit is safe in the first place?

Nobody. As I said in the bit you omitted, it is a level of risk laid down in law as being acceptable, not "risk free".

Hitting a drunk pedestrian standing in the road at 29.9mph

I don't agree that they should ask whether or not he was safe, unless you are advocating that this should apply in all speeding cases. The problem is that it is close to impossible to determine whether it was truly safe, or whether the driver is incurring an increase in risk of 0.00000000001% that will, over large numbers of examples of drivers incurring the same miniscule increase in risk, increase the accident rate.

Hitting a drunk pedestrian standing in the road at 29.9mph is far from acceptable...

The powers that be have decided what the tradeoff will be, they have set the maximum permitted level of speed-related risk.

I didn't say it is. If people would actually read what was said instead of selectively quoting to misrepresent people's views, it would all be much easier, e.g.

But then I'm fairly convinced that many people on here don't actually care what people are trying to convey, they're happy to deliberately misunderstand, then argue against something that the person wasn't saying at all.

The powers that be have decided what the tradeoff will be, they have set the maximum permitted level of speed-related risk.