h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Speed can certainly increase the severity of accidents, and reduces the margin for error, but stupidity and selfishness are also major causes of accidents.
One major reason why speed gets such a negative press is that, unfortunately, many stupid or selfish drivers will also drive at excessive speed, often in bad conditions.
Someone too damn thick to check in their mirrors before changing lanes probably isn't keeping a very close eye on their speedometer. Partly, I think the quietness of many modern cars is also to blame - if you can't hear the engine, you lose an important source of information. If you're driving a properly noisy car, it's much easier to stay aware of your speed all the time.

Personally, given the responsibility involved in controlling a ton or two of high-velocity metal, I think any driving test should be designed so that at least 10% of the population are incapable of passing it. That way, I suspect there be sufficient political pressure to help ensure that transport policy caters better for those people unable or unwilling to be drivers.

Recently, there was a TV program in the UK about people learning to drive. One woman who'd failed her test dozens of times eventually passed and got her 15 minutes of fame as a minor celebrity. My view is that anyone who repeatedly fails a test has proved their incompetence to drive a car, even if on one occasion they manage to scrape a pass. Would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who took 20 attempts to qualify?
If you fail N times, you should have to pass at least N times before being allowed on the public roads.

Given the undoubted recklessness of many young males, I reckon that motorcycling should be allowed from age 16, but car driving limited to 18 or 19. That way, the real idiots could remove themselves from the gene pool with minimal harm to the rest of us, and many others would learn an awful lot about tyre adhesion in varied weather, how to read the road, and (with a little luck) may even grow up with more awareness of two-wheeled vehicles than many motorists have these days.

If I may reiterate, in the absence of cops, people drive whatever speed feels right; nobody really wants to be dying to get there.
I.E. My mother will go 80kph regardless; whereas I may go 115kph where the Velocity Nazis have set the limit at 110...
A small but meaningful finger to Big Brother and his little dog, too!!
(and the horse he rode in on)
On that (flat) note; PLT, Mick.

A friends Gan always stuck to 30 in 30 zones, or so she thought until her grandson told her to slow down and pointed out she was looking at the rev counter not the speedo

CH

I can't believe it, I was 'zapped' half an hour ago by a police speed
gun just outside Cirencester - there were 3 policemen and 2 police
cars waiting there to catch people doing 35 in a 30 m.p.h. limit.
Presumably, being a Sunday evening, they are all on extra time. Yet,
when my house was broken into a few months ago, they said they had
no hope of catching the culprits as they were under-manned and did not
have the funds to purchase a finger-print match computer - It makes me sick!!

Presumably the speed trap is to raise funds. But then again, if it takes 3 policemen to do it, the rate of return has to be pretty low. And, of course, nabbing people for 35 in a 30 is totally anal and stupid. Go do something productive is my vote. (In the states, you could generally blast right by a cop going 5 over without any fear of retribution at all. It's like an unwritten law. And, actually, in many cases, it's a *written* law. Some of the speed laws depending upon what state you're in spell out that there's a 5 mph tolerance.)

I have just been caught AGAIN with a (so the ticket says) a camera located somewhere on YARM ROAD, STOCKTON, (UK). I was apparently doing 40mph in a 30mph limit. I no doubt should be taken out and shot through the head for such a vile crime. There was no (visible) flash and nothing to indicate a camera was anywhere about. I can only assume that hundreds of other law-breaking drivers like myself were also caught that day. I was in a whole queue of traffic that was all travelling at about the same (illegal) speed.
Talk about being hacked off!! I am livid. I have had a clean licence for more than 10 years and then get clobbered twice in a month!! 6 points on my licence. Aarrgh!
Seeking legal advice, I have been advised that the form the UK police traffic departments send out can infringe your human rights. I presume this is because they imply that if you do not incriminate yourself by ADMITTING it was you in the car, at the place and on the date mentioned, then NOTHING CAN BE DONE. The police must have some method of proving that YOU were the driver of the vehicle. They cannot prosecute the vehicle only the driver of the vehicle and only at present if he/she admits they were driving the car at the stated place and time.
The police state "THIS ALLEGATION IS SUPPORTED BY PHOTOGRAPIC AND/OR VIDEOGRAPHIC AND/OR RADAR EVIDENCE" but had already stated earlier that it was a camera shot. So I had to gamble on whether it was a rear view of the car or a front view. If it was a rear view I was essentially covered by the European law and need not incriminate myself. If however it was a front view and I was visible "in the shot" so to speak, I have been truly nabbed and, as we say, "It's a fair cop". It could go to court and if I was "in the picture" then it could go to £1000 fine and between 3-6 points on the licence. (12 points and your are disqualified).
I need my car for my job.
I gambled that it wasn't worth the £40 fine and the 3 points.
Take it on the chin.
Curse and swear.
Hate the police (something I have never done) and drive like a snail.

I am a technologist and could think of several ways round these detection methods. I am also law abiding and will do whatever it takes to help the police. In this instance I have become a "solved crime statistic" and I don't like it one little bit; especially having to incriminate myself to become one.

Sorry to whinge.
I feel better now.

I think we have probably strayed far from the original question that started this forum, but what the hell! More comments please.

TTFN (ta tar for now)

Freddie.

In October, we shall incorporate the European Covention into our legal
system. In most countries in the world (except ours) you have the
right to remain silent and cannot be forced to incriminate yourself.
However, in the UK they introduced a special law to cover the speed
traps, which removed the right to remain silent in speeding cases.
The new European laws state this is an infringement of basic human
rights and therefore (from October) the Police can no longer legitimately force you to incriminate yourself.

There was an interesting case in Birmingham last week, where the judge upheld the defendant' right to remain silent and threw out the Police prosecution (although the laws don't tecnically come into force until October and the Police said they would appeal on the basis that the laws did not apply yet).

As far as the actual Police evidence is concerned, all they have is a photograph of a car fitting the description of your car with your registration plates on it.

A favourite trick of car theives is to steal a car (say a BMW 750 in silver), copy the plates of another
BMW 750 in silver and put them on the car, so if the Police see the (stolen) car being driven suspiciously and do a check on the plates, they come up as legitimate.

My brother-in-law received a summons for speeding in London on a day when he was driving in Gloucestershire. When he said it had to be a mistake as his car (a black Golf GTi) had not been out of Gloucestershire on that day and he could prove it, the Police actually wrote to him admitting that it was probably a stolen black Golf GTi with copies of his number plates on. After that, he realised that the Police could never do him with a speed camera as they had no way of proving it was HIS car.

The answer to your speed camera problem is quite simple - they cannot prove it was you or even your car that was photographed speeding (unless your car has specific distinguishing features on the back).
If you do not answer the summons and dont' tell them who the driver was, they will send you another letter (in about a months time), which in turn you also ignore. You will eventually be sent a summons for a court hearing for refusing to answer their previous requests and if you adjourn that hearing, it will probably be October, the new laws will apply and they won't be able to prosecute you for anything.

Good Luck!!

I have just received my licence and £40 cheque back from the Magistrates at Middlebrough. I had said on the speeding ticket form that "I was NOT sure it was me driving" and highlighting the part on the form where you must say "I WAS THAT DRIVER...", etc.

Since I have thrown doubt on the certainty of the driver they have also given me a number of the local Middlebrough police, which will allow me to see the damning evidence. IF I am not visible in the picture, which I don't think I will be, because I don't think it was me. What can they do?

They cannot prosecute the car. If I don't ADMIT it was me, because of reasonable doubt, I do believe this ticket will die?

Any comments on this?

TTFN

Freddie

About every Austrian one...

Dear "Schemndrik", what are you talking about? I don't understand your reply? .

I went along to the Middlesbrough police traffic unit and had a look at the "evidence" on video. It certainly was me. A full car frontal with my grim face in full view.

The system was made by "TSS" (no idea what that stands for, maybe Speed System for the last two letters?). The sensors on the road were pneumatic strips (small rubber tubes) a known and fixed distance apart. These feed into the timing/sensing unit which was in the back of a police van which had silvered windows at the back. The data from this unit put the info onto the bottom part of the recording screen of the video camera set-up in the back of the van. The van was positioned on a slight bend so the camera always got a good clean picture of the car going over the sensors on the road. As I passed over the second sensor the screen data gave the time to the second, along with the date and location, etc., and the speed. In this case 40mph.

Beware this section of Road. YARM ROAD, STOCKTON, Co. Durham, UK.

Some statistics gleaned at the time:-

The speed-trap van has been in action for about 5-6 months.
During that time they (the police) have caught 8400+ motorists doing more than 30mph.
They have raised £300,000+ in fines just on this road.
They have raised £2,000,000 in fines within the area.

I am now going to buy a cruise control for my car and become terminally boring sticking abso-bloody-lutely to the speed limits. I need my license for my job.

I do not like this at all.

TTFN

Freddie

I think a balaclava is probably cheeper than cruise control

I had actually considered that but felt it was just a tad twatty. Either a Homer Simpson mask (8(|) or darkened windows for me!
TTFN
Freddie

Did anyone else see the article in a National newspaper earlier this week about a road worker who is facing possible prosecution for warning motorists about a police speed trap?

Basically, it said police were puzzled when all the drivers passed through their radar trap well within the speed limit. However they eventually discovered that a contractor had erected a cardboard sign saying "speed trap" at the roadworks where he was working. The police claim that he was obstructing them in the execution of their duty and that he had done no-one any favours by putting up the sign. One PC was quoted as saying "It must be remembered that we were doing this to save lives; speed kills".

What is their problem? They claim they have the radar traps to make drivers slow down; the road worker's sign made everyone slow down (and was therefore 100% effective) - surely they should be delighted that between the two of them, they succeeded in making everyone drive safely. However, this incident only goes to prove that the police use the radar traps (speeding fines) as an easy source of income and nothing annoys them more than spending a whole day trying to catch speeding drivers only to find they are not breaking the law.

I would be intrigued to see what they try and prosecute him for - 'Inciting' people NOT to break the Law?

All he did was interrupt their revenue stream. If they *really* wanted to simply slow folks down, they would put up those signs at every work area.

I must stop short of saying they succeeded in making people drive safely, though, because driving safely has little to do with the speed limit. Most of the unsafe drivers would be unsafe at the speed limit as well as over it, and most of the really safe drivers would be safe at speeds in excess of the limit.