New speed cameras on M1 and M25, captures you at 72Mph is that true or not. |
New speed cameras on M1 and M25, captures you at 72Mph is that true or not. |
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 22:28
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,570 Joined: 13 May 2010 Member No.: 37,524 |
Seen on facebook,
Or is this fake news? The 6 points seems to imply that it is. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 22:28
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 23:22
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Looks like utter bollox to me, AFAIK the tolerance for Home Office approval is actually 3 mph above 66 mph, and we know the prosecution threshold is 79. And come on, instant ban & custodial sentence for doing 91? Pull the other one.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 04:14
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,079 Joined: 3 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,078 |
As Donald Trump would say.......
|
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 04:40
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,199 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Fake news, spread by the sheeple on regular 'soshal meeja' sites like FB as usual.
Giveaways it's fake are 1/ Its at least 4 constabularies changing policy 2/ 'automatic fine' is not a concept in the UK even if you loosely equate it to a fixed penalty it could never be the 3/ 6 points claimed Unfortunately there are 'deficient' people out there who love to make something up and get a thrill from it being circulated. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 04:45 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:17
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,562 Joined: 14 Jul 2005 From: No longer on a train Member No.: 3,385 |
Anyway, the question has been answered so thread closed before it gets crayoned on. Highways Agency have gone so far as to issue a statement saying this is fake news. -------------------- The accident was caused by cockpit thrombosis - a dangerous clot between seatback and steering wheel ...
1. Read this first 2. Nip Wizard Parking tickets - council - 0, Rallyman - 1 |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:28
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
Anyway, the question has been answered so thread closed before it gets crayoned on. Highways Agency have gone so far as to issue a statement saying this is fake news. Why? Surely anything that deters people from speeding is a good thing? This post has been edited by nigelbb: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:28 -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:36
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,199 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I'm sure Highways England will be along soon to say that any information from the Highways Agency must be fake news....
https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/m...n-hoax-15651502 https://twitter.com/HighwaysEngland/status/...764957220065280 This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:41 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:39
Post
#8
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
Why? Surely anything that deters people from speeding is a good thing? Not exactly a good thing for public bodies to get a reputation for lying in their statements, is it though? Confidence in government is low enough already, without making it worse by persuading people to ignore anything they say. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:43
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Anyway, the question has been answered so thread closed before it gets crayoned on. Highways Agency have gone so far as to issue a statement saying this is fake news. Why? Surely anything that deters people from speeding is a good thing? Trouble is it deters people from even travelling at the speed limit. Many are so scared of cameras that they allow a good few MPH under the limit. So is common to find people doing 60 on a motorway (often MLOC) and creating a mobile traffic block. Fake news like this only makes them slow even more. Which I wouldn't mind if the bu55ers would stay in lane one or actually speed up if they are overtaking. There is little more frustrating then travelling at the legal limit when it is safe to do so and being forced to slow because of some twassock who doesn't trust their speedo, doesn't follow rules of the road and thinks that they will automatically get a ticket for one mile an hour over the limit. These days I seem to spend most of my time on motorways in lane one. It is simply far easier then playing with the twassocks in other lanes. |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:55
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
What is even more depressing is that even folks I would consider to be rather smart fell foul to this hoax, and didn't believe me when I tried to explain how wrong it was.
This post has been edited by typefish: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:56 |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 10:24
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,199 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
There were so many things wrong with it it was quite amusing to see how gullible some people are, lets ignore the enforcement starting at 72mph for now and cover
1/ Auto ticketing - doesn't happen in the UK 2/ Of 6 points - well we start at 3 and fixed penalties are 3 3/ Instant ban - again the UK has never worked on that basis 4/ For doing 90mph - even the badly misrepresented changes to the sentencing guidelines tell you that's not true 5/ Custodial sentence - seriously 6/ As an 'order' - oh dear lord...... -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 10:38
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
What is even more depressing is that even folks I would consider to be rather smart fell foul to this hoax, and didn't believe me when I tried to explain how wrong it was. Tell me. Had one guy on a similar report (SPEC cameras in Devon IIRC) who was very certain that the police already ticket for 1mph plus. And got very sanctimonious when told different, only missed out on "think of the children" but did include a "how it you feel if it was your loved one who didn't get home because of some lunatic speeding" FFS, the days of hitting lane 3 and holding a steady 85 to 90 may be long gone but I remain to be convinced that all the speed controls and people's perception of them have made motorways any safer. |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 13:05
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
Why? Surely anything that deters people from speeding is a good thing? Not exactly a good thing for public bodies to get a reputation for lying in their statements, is it though? Confidence in government is low enough already, without making it worse by persuading people to ignore anything they say. I thought that it was some idiot posting on Faceache who was lying not a government agency. -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 13:27
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,199 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
No, it was twatter originally, HE were asked specifically if it was correct and they spoke the truth in reply.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 13:29
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Many are so scared of cameras that they allow a good few MPH under the limit. It's a maximum not a target... -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 13:37
Post
#16
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
I thought that it was some idiot posting on Faceache who was lying not a government agency. Sorry, I misunderstood - I thought you were making a more general point. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:17
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
Many are so scared of cameras that they allow a good few MPH under the limit. So is common to find people doing 60 on a motorway (often MLOC) and creating a mobile traffic block. A particular road tunnel I travel through often has SPECS cameras covering its entire length, to enforce the 70 limit (or 40 when there is some kind of restriction, e.g. lane closure). It frustrates me that so many drivers who are happily doing 70-75 before getting to the tunnel slow to 60 or less through it, and normally in lane 2 (of 2). |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:34
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
And got very sanctimonious when told different, only missed out on "think of the children" but did include a "how it you feel if it was your loved one who didn't get home because of some lunatic speeding" One of the other myths that's peddled. It's not 'speed' that kills, it's 'inappropriate speed,' otherwise I would be dead every time I got on a plane. It's probably perfectly safe to do 60mph on past a school at 0300, but foolhardy and positively dangerous to try to get to 20mph at 1500! This post has been edited by cabbyman: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:37 -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:54
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Many are so scared of cameras that they allow a good few MPH under the limit. It's a maximum not a target... If you're a professional driver responsible, for example, for delivering your employer's goods quickly and efficiently, it is a target The same applies if I travel to meet a client The minimum extra hour of travelling time that I have to allow for slow traffic is a waste |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 18:03
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Many are so scared of cameras that they allow a good few MPH under the limit. It's a maximum not a target... Quite But why does anyone travel at significantly less then the maximum when there is no need and sit in lane 2 (or 3) to do it ?? Had it this afternoon on the M54. Relatively quiet, comfortable cruising at 70, overtaking lorries or slower cars as needed but a significant time in lane 1. Then it got a little more crowded and suddenly there are queues in lane 2 (two lane motorway) who are going slower then lane 1. I'll bet that at the front of the queue was one vehicle doing 55mph while trying to overtake a lorry doing 50. May have been a lorry but is often a car that is quite capable of 70. One vehicle that is heading up a progressively more frustrated queue of drivers, many tailgating the one in front and many tempted, if not actually undertaking to gain a few yards. Brake lights every second or so that progressively slows the queue further. That was my cue to sit in lane one with a reasonable distance to the lorry ahead and relax, next ten miles to the M6 at 50mph. Not much slower then lane 2 but a lot less frustrating and dare I say it, safer, for me at least. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:26 |