Over 200,000 could get speed camera refund

[PK]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
>>> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
>>> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series.
>
>> Er...fair cop, then, 50mph limit or no 50mph.
>
> No. The police do not prosecute for marginal excess of the limit. The
> official national police policy margin for a 70 limit is 10% = 2mph =
> 79mph (ie, for a true speed of 79mph, a penalty or summons may be issued).


As a matter if interest does anyone know the quoted accuracy of speed camera
results eg 75+/-X

pk

 

[JNugent]

Colin Reed wrote:
>
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>>
>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>
>>>> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
>>>> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series.
>>
>>> Er...fair cop, then, 50mph limit or no 50mph.
>>
>> No. The police do not prosecute for marginal excess of the limit. The
>> official national police policy margin for a 70 limit is 10% = 2mph =
>> 79mph (ie, for a true speed of 79mph, a penalty or summons may be
>> issued).
>>
>> And that's assuming that in this case, the speed measurement was
>> accurate and has been reported accurately. Had the case come to court,
>> it might have been disputed.

> This is an oft quoted "guideline" that seems to be regularly denied by
> police spokesmen when talking about speeding.

That's odd.

ACPO doesn't "deny" it. They promote it, not least on their website.

> Do you actually have any
> cite to show that this is an "official policy"?

<http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/speed_enforcement_guidelines_web_v7_foi.doc>

See page 6.

The published margins are, of course (as I suspect you already know),
related to the legal requirements for accuracy of speedometers, with a
tiny bit added on for a safety cushion.

 

[JNugent]

Nick wrote:
> Colin Reed wrote:
>>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
>>>>> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series.
>>>
>>>> Er...fair cop, then, 50mph limit or no 50mph.
>>>
>>> No. The police do not prosecute for marginal excess of the limit. The
>>> official national police policy margin for a 70 limit is 10% = 2mph =
>>> 79mph (ie, for a true speed of 79mph, a penalty or summons may be
>>> issued).
>>>
>>> And that's assuming that in this case, the speed measurement was
>>> accurate and has been reported accurately. Had the case come to
>>> court, it might have been disputed.
>>
>> This is an oft quoted "guideline" that seems to be regularly denied by
>> police spokesmen when talking about speeding. Do you actually have
>> any cite to show that this is an "official policy"?
>
> Doesn't really matter does it. The police don't make the law.
>
> You should contrast this "not really a crime" remark with his view of
> pavement cycling.

There are two sorts of traffic offence.

Some are graduated and highly marginal (speed is a good example). Others
are absolute nd much more clear-cut. Driving or cycling along a footway
is a good example of that latter sort.

The evidential problem with speed is that in order to be *just*, the
enforcement system needs to be provided and operated within a mindset
that recognises that marginal errors can be made in measurement (whether
by the vehicle's equipment or by the detection equipment - or both).
Marginal allowances are therefore necessary in order to avoid injustice
and to recognise human frailty.

There are no such evidential problems with driving or cycling along the
footway. You've either committed the offence or you haven't. And you
have committed it if you've been seen doing it. Far simpler.

 

[JNugent]

PK wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>>
>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>
>>>> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September 2006
>>>> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series.
>>
>>> Er...fair cop, then, 50mph limit or no 50mph.
>>
>> No. The police do not prosecute for marginal excess of the limit. The
>> official national police policy margin for a 70 limit is 10% = 2mph =
>> 79mph (ie, for a true speed of 79mph, a penalty or summons may be
>> issued).

> As a matter if interest does anyone know the quoted accuracy of speed
> camera results eg 75+/-X

They are certainly not set to trigger at just any old speed above the
limit, if that's what the question is about.

A (retired) traffic police officer who used to post regularly in
uk.transport assured readers that the cameras need to see a speed of at
least limit+10%+2mph before even registering. I think he might have said
that it needs to be higher than that for the camera to flash. That is,
unless the equipment is faulty, or is fooled into flashing by a
doppler-effect error caused by vehicles travelling in two directions -
which it sometimes is.

It's also important to remember that the ACPO guidelines are for the
guidance of that almost extinct species - the officer on patrol. Camera
operations work under different guidelines (see above for one
suggestion) and don't have the same discretion as police officers.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> What would be a "better" way to spend your time?

>>> Driving legally, perhaps?

>> Is there any point in responding to your "conversational", context-free,
>> posts?
>> Stop snipping so incompetently. This is Usenet, not email.

> OK. I'll take the bait and respond more fully.

> You suggested that the hapless BMW driver, snapped by a speed camera
> while driving at 77mph in a 50mph zone spent 300 hours of his time
> wisely defending his case.

I don't recall using the word "wise", but anyone sensible can see that
it would be a necessary process. There is no way to dispose of a
prosecution other than by fighting it or accepting it. Perhaps you think
that drivers should not (be allowed to) fight unjust charges.

> You suggested that the time was well spent
> as he may have lost his licence, and with it his job and marriage. You
> gave no evidence that either his job or marriage were at risk.

Any licence endorsement is a very harsh punishment, since it sours
relationships with the police, the driver's insurers and his employer
(if he drives as part of his job). Every endorsement is an open0ended
punishment (far from being "fixed") and moves the driver a little bit
closer to having his life wrecked. I would hate to have an endorsement
on my licence - even one point.

And perhaps you don't know, but unemployment and the financial pressures
it causes frequently spark marriage breakdowns and dislocation.
Perhaps it shouldn't - but it does. Delve into the real world every now
and then. It can be a murkier place than the ivory towers you obviously
inhabit.

> Referring to the 300 hours of time spent on his case, you went on to
> ask "What would be a "better" way to spend your time?"

> I responded by suggesting that spending a few seconds by driving
> legally may be a better use of time.

What *are* you wittering about?

Do you have any reason to think that the driver in question *didn't*
drive legally at other times? And whether he did or not, what difference
would it make in respect of the NIP he had already (unjustly) been
issued with?

Once issued with the penalty notice, his only relevant choices were to
accept that he was "guilty" of something he says he didn't know he'd
done and could not avoid, or to fight it. Nothing else would produce a
result. And if it really took 300 hours of work, he ought seriously to
consider civil action agaisnt the local authority.

> I hope this clarifies a conversation that clearly appears to have
> confused you.

You're the one who is confused.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:19:43 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I responded by suggesting that spending a few seconds by driving
>> legally may be a better use of time.
>
>What *are* you wittering about?
>
>Do you have any reason to think that the driver in question *didn't*
>drive legally at other times? And whether he did or not, what difference
>would it make in respect of the NIP he had already (unjustly) been
>issued with?

Fow what distance is the 50mph limit in force at the end of the M11 to
the North Circular? 2 miles?

2 miles at 77mph takes 94 seconds.
2 miles at 50mph takes 144 seconds.

Driving at a legal speed would have cost him 50 seconds. That's a
good deal less than 300 hours.

And the distance the 50mph limit is in force is probably a good deal
less than 2 miles.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> I responded by suggesting that spending a few seconds by driving
>>> legally may be a better use of time.

>> What *are* you wittering about?
>> Do you have any reason to think that the driver in question *didn't*
>> drive legally at other times? And whether he did or not, what difference
>> would it make in respect of the NIP he had already (unjustly) been
>> issued with?

> Fow what distance is the 50mph limit in force at the end of the M11 to
> the North Circular? 2 miles?

Non-sequitur, as already explained.

> 2 miles at 77mph takes 94 seconds.
> 2 miles at 50mph takes 144 seconds.
> Driving at a legal speed would have cost him 50 seconds. That's a
> good deal less than 300 hours.

<sigh>

You haven't really understood what any of the reports were about, have you?

> And the distance the 50mph limit is in force is probably a good deal
> less than 2 miles.

If I thought you could grasp what it was *actually* about, I'd advise
you to re-read the thread [hint: your comments immediately above prove
that you haven't so far].

 

[Nick]

JNugent wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> Colin Reed wrote:
>>>
>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Simon, 40, a dad of one from West London, was caught in September
>>>>>> 2006
>>>>>> driving at 77mph in his BMW 3 Series.
>>>>
>>>>> Er...fair cop, then, 50mph limit or no 50mph.
>>>>
>>>> No. The police do not prosecute for marginal excess of the limit.
>>>> The official national police policy margin for a 70 limit is 10% =
>>>> 2mph = 79mph (ie, for a true speed of 79mph, a penalty or summons
>>>> may be issued).
>>>>
>>>> And that's assuming that in this case, the speed measurement was
>>>> accurate and has been reported accurately. Had the case come to
>>>> court, it might have been disputed.
>>>
>>> This is an oft quoted "guideline" that seems to be regularly denied
>>> by police spokesmen when talking about speeding. Do you actually
>>> have any cite to show that this is an "official policy"?
>>
>> Doesn't really matter does it. The police don't make the law.
>>
>> You should contrast this "not really a crime" remark with his view of
>> pavement cycling.
>
> There are two sorts of traffic offence.
>
> Some are graduated and highly marginal (speed is a good example).

The concept of a maximum is quite simple. You either exceed the maximum
or you don't. Gatso accuracy is in the +/- 1 mph region not 7 mph. There
is also safety margin built into a car's speedometer so that drivers do
not exceed the limit without knowing it.


> Others
> are absolute nd much more clear-cut. Driving or cycling along a footway
> is a good example of that latter sort.
>
> The evidential problem with speed is that in order to be *just*, the
> enforcement system needs to be provided and operated within a mindset
> that recognises that marginal errors can be made in measurement (whether
> by the vehicle's equipment or by the detection equipment - or both).
> Marginal allowances are therefore necessary in order to avoid injustice
> and to recognise human frailty.
>

This is almost as ridiculous as that idiot who reckons that car drivers
should be able to drive through red for 5 (or whatever it was) seconds
after it changes.

The joke is that some drivers seem to expect to be allowed to break the
law by a fixed margin and start *****ing that they haven't been given
enough margin.

Give them an inch and they take a mile.

> There are no such evidential problems with driving or cycling along the
> footway. You've either committed the offence or you haven't. And you
> have committed it if you've been seen doing it. Far simpler.
>

Far simpler for a hypocrite.

 

[Nick]

JNugent wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> What would be a "better" way to spend your time?
>
>>>> Driving legally, perhaps?
>
>>> Is there any point in responding to your "conversational",
>>> context-free, posts?
>>> Stop snipping so incompetently. This is Usenet, not email.
>
>> OK. I'll take the bait and respond more fully.
>
>> You suggested that the hapless BMW driver, snapped by a speed camera
>> while driving at 77mph in a 50mph zone spent 300 hours of his time
>> wisely defending his case.
>
> I don't recall using the word "wise", but anyone sensible can see that
> it would be a necessary process. There is no way to dispose of a
> prosecution other than by fighting it or accepting it. Perhaps you think
> that drivers should not (be allowed to) fight unjust charges.
>
>> You suggested that the time was well spent
>> as he may have lost his licence, and with it his job and marriage. You
>> gave no evidence that either his job or marriage were at risk.
>
> Any licence endorsement is a very harsh punishment, since it sours
> relationships with the police, the driver's insurers and his employer
> (if he drives as part of his job). Every endorsement is an open0ended
> punishment (far from being "fixed") and moves the driver a little bit
> closer to having his life wrecked. I would hate to have an endorsement
> on my licence - even one point.
>
> And perhaps you don't know, but unemployment and the financial pressures
> it causes frequently spark marriage breakdowns and dislocation. Perhaps
> it shouldn't - but it does. Delve into the real world every now and
> then. It can be a murkier place than the ivory towers you obviously
> inhabit.
>
>> Referring to the 300 hours of time spent on his case, you went on to
>> ask "What would be a "better" way to spend your time?"
>
>> I responded by suggesting that spending a few seconds by driving
>> legally may be a better use of time.
>
> What *are* you wittering about?
>
> Do you have any reason to think that the driver in question *didn't*
> drive legally at other times? And whether he did or not, what difference
> would it make in respect of the NIP he had already (unjustly) been
> issued with?
>
> Once issued with the penalty notice, his only relevant choices were to
> accept that he was "guilty" of something he says he didn't know he'd
> done and could not avoid, or to fight it. Nothing else would produce a
> result. And if it really took 300 hours of work, he ought seriously to
> consider civil action agaisnt the local authority.
>

This is almost as amusing as Nuxx.

A car licence isn't that important to most people I know and yet they
never lose it. Why is that the people whose professions rely on a
licence seem to be so stupid.

>> I hope this clarifies a conversation that clearly appears to have
>> confused you.
>
> You're the one who is confused.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:52:31 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Colin Reed wrote:
>>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

>
>> This is an oft quoted "guideline" that seems to be regularly denied by
>> police spokesmen when talking about speeding.
>
>That's odd.
>
>ACPO doesn't "deny" it. They promote it, not least on their website.
>
>> Do you actually have any
>> cite to show that this is an "official policy"?
>
><http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/speed_enforcement_guidelines_web_v7_foi.doc>
>
>See page 6.
>
>The published margins are, of course (as I suspect you already know),
>related to the legal requirements for accuracy of speedometers, with a
>tiny bit added on for a safety cushion.

The published margins are not related to the legal requirements for
accuracy of speedometers. Speedometers only show speeds that are
higher than the actual speed, they are not allowed to read less. +10
percent -0%. Therefore at 77mph the speedo must have been reading at
least 77 and could have been indicating up to 84.4 mph.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 12 Apr, 01:54, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
> > On 11 Apr, 23:48, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> But I have an idea.  I think the limit should be posted on the back
> >> of the camera.  No excuses at all, then.
>
> >> Guy
> >> --
> >> May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting..http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> >> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
>
> > I must be seeing things, Chapman's come up with a good idea
>
> He's nicked it from Paul Smith (who in turn, might not have been its
> originator).


That explains everything!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:54:39 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>He's nicked it from Paul Smith (who in turn, might not have been its
>originator).

False. I have made a point of not reading any of his drivel for
years. It is, however, in the "Blindingly Obvious" category.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:54:39 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> He's nicked it from Paul Smith (who in turn, might not have been its
>> originator).
>
> False. I have made a point of not reading any of his drivel for
> years. It is, however, in the "Blindingly Obvious" category.

There have been calls for the limit "roundel" to be attached to the back
of cameras for years. It's such an obvious good idea that local "safety"
parnerships refuse to do it.

 

[JNugent]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:52:31 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Colin Reed wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> This is an oft quoted "guideline" that seems to be regularly denied by
>>> police spokesmen when talking about speeding.
>> That's odd.
>>
>> ACPO doesn't "deny" it. They promote it, not least on their website.
>>
>>> Do you actually have any
>>> cite to show that this is an "official policy"?
>> <http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/speed_enforcement_guidelines_web_v7_foi.doc>
>>
>> See page 6.
>>
>> The published margins are, of course (as I suspect you already know),
>> related to the legal requirements for accuracy of speedometers, with a
>> tiny bit added on for a safety cushion.

> The published margins are not related to the legal requirements for
> accuracy of speedometers.

Except for the fact that they are both 10%, you mean?

Yes - we know that there's another 2mph added to the prosecution
tolerances, but that is on top of the 10%.

Why, in your opinion, are these tolerance levels applied? I'm not aksing
you whether you think they *should* be applied, only why they are applied.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:21:07 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:52:31 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin Reed wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> This is an oft quoted "guideline" that seems to be regularly denied by
>>>> police spokesmen when talking about speeding.
>>> That's odd.
>>>
>>> ACPO doesn't "deny" it. They promote it, not least on their website.
>>>
>>>> Do you actually have any
>>>> cite to show that this is an "official policy"?
>>> <http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/speed_enforcement_guidelines_web_v7_foi.doc>
>>>
>>> See page 6.
>>>
>>> The published margins are, of course (as I suspect you already know),
>>> related to the legal requirements for accuracy of speedometers, with a
>>> tiny bit added on for a safety cushion.
>
>> The published margins are not related to the legal requirements for
>> accuracy of speedometers.
>
>Except for the fact that they are both 10%, you mean?
>
>Yes - we know that there's another 2mph added to the prosecution
>tolerances, but that is on top of the 10%.
>
>Why, in your opinion, are these tolerance levels applied? I'm not aksing
>you whether you think they *should* be applied, only why they are applied.

I don't really know why the tolerance levels are applied as even
though the tolerances are both 10% they are in different directions.
Ignoring the 2mph, which should be the only tolerance required, if you
are doing a real 77mph then your speed should be reading somewhere
between 77mph and 84.7 mph. I can only guess that the tolerances stem
from the 30mph limit. Doing a real 30 the speed reads somewhere
between 30 & 33 and even though the accuracy may be within 10% the
readability could be much worse due to thickness of the lines and
thickness of the needle. Also at 30mph 10% + 2mph comes to 35mph which
is a round figure

 

[Andy Morris]

JNugent wrote:
>
> There have been calls for the limit "roundel" to be attached to the back
> of cameras for years. It's such an obvious good idea that local "safety"
> parnerships refuse to do it.

How about doing it the other way?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> naked_draughtsman wrote:

>> Why is there a 50 mph speed limit on a motorway anyway?
>
> It's the bit right down at the southern end of the M11, where it
> interchanges with the A406 (N Circ Road) and the A12.

Which I drive on almost every day. Any driver who claims he can't see the
50 mph sign shouldn't be out without a white stick and a Labrador.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Funsize Mars bars? What could possibly be MORE fun about eating
LESS chocolate?

 

[lardyninja]

On Apr 13, 12:02 am, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> A car licence isn't that important to most people I know and yet they
> never lose it. Why is that the people whose professions rely on a
> licence seem to be so stupid.


Stupid people don't have many career options. There can after all only
be one Jade Goody.

LN

 

[JNugent]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>
>>> Why is there a 50 mph speed limit on a motorway anyway?
>> It's the bit right down at the southern end of the M11, where it
>> interchanges with the A406 (N Circ Road) and the A12.
>
> Which I drive on almost every day. Any driver who claims he can't see the
> 50 mph sign shouldn't be out without a white stick and a Labrador.

It was at night. And AIUI, it has been admitted that the illumination of
the sign (I assume it is not ballotinised) had completely failed. That's
the issue.

 

[The Luggage]

On 12 Apr, 20:57, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> There are two sorts of traffic offence.
>
> Some are graduated and highly marginal (speed is a good example). Others
> are absolute nd much more clear-cut. Driving or cycling along a footway
> is a good example of that latter sort.

But it should also be borne in mind that (to take a not so random
example) the FPN system for cycling on footpaths was originally
intended _not_ to be a clear cut offence, and the circumstances and
the manner in which the cycle is being used were to be taken into
context by any officer contemplating giving a fixed penalty. See
various threads passim for more info. Google 'Paul Boateng' in this
group for more info if you can't remember or find them.

TL