Acceptable?

[milleplod]

This has been all over the 'net for a week or two now - East Yorkshire police's latest attempt to catch speeders. Its not 'urban myth' stuff, the force in question did a press release all about it.

Opinions invited, ladies and gentlemen!

Pete

[ColinBarber]

My local police force have a policy to put up signs in areas where they are deploying speed traps. They seem to want to educate people and make them more aware of speed rather than catch and fine as many people as they can. This seems a good approach to me but it is at their discretion and they could change their policy at anytime.

The above just seems to want to catch as many people as possible, maybe to improve their statistics.

If the police force and government where truly interested in making sure there was no speeding then just put up an average speed camera at each end of a stretch of road, don't employ people to sit in tractors.

[Stuno1]

I understand the 'you shouldn't be speeding anyway' argument but you can guarantee that's in a place people let loose a bit and when it's safe to do so personally I see no issue with it.

This comes back to the whole money maker vs education/crash prevention/safety debate. Personally I think camera should be used in targeted hot spots and not to generate revenue and should be advertised to educate and warn people as it could be a dangerous location. Going out of your way to conceal cameras in this way is abuse if a power imo.

Stu

[steve2006]

Imagine driving down a quiet 30MPH road with little traffic and you see a slow moving tractor in front of you doing 20MPH.

The road ahead is clear and it is safe to overtake, to make sure you get past and back to the correct side of the road you accelerate to over 30MPH and as you pass they get you over the limit.

[ColinBarber]

Seems sensible

Imagine driving down a quiet 30MPH road with little traffic and you see a slow moving tractor in front of you doing 20MPH.

The road ahead is clear and it is safe to overtake, to make sure you get past and back to the correct side of the road you accelerate to over 30MPH and as you pass they get you over the limit.

Seems sensible but illegal.

[dave1]

It used to be the case, and may still be, that in order to execute a safe overtake it was legal to briefly exceed the limit provided you went back to the limit following the overtake although I think the actual amount over the limit was not laid down. This was back in the '70's so not sure if it is still legal. Cameras would just record that you were over the limit though.

[milleplod]

Its never been 'legal' to exceed a posted limit, although various urban myths would have you think otherwise! Back in the 70s, the only enforcement done would've been by a person, and drivers would certainly have been given more leeway than machines do today.

Pete

[dave1]

You may well be correct but that is what I was told by an advanced police driver friend of mine in Huntingdon at the time. This was backed up by several of his colleagues. He told me that if, for example, A vehicle in front was doing 35mph in a 40mph limit then it was perfectly acceptable to accelerate past the limit to facilitate the overtake in a safer manner. As I said though, a camera just does what is set up to do.

[milleplod]

You may well be correct but that is what I was told by an advanced police driver friend of mine in Huntingdon at the time. This was backed up by several of his colleagues. He told me that if, for example, A vehicle in front was doing 35mph in a 40mph limit then it was perfectly acceptable to accelerate past the limit to facilitate the overtake in a safer manner. As I said though, a camera just does what is set up to do.

That will be the 'human interface leeway' I mentioned then Dave! No 'legal' standing, just something tolerated by a bobby at that particular time. The bobby 20 miles down the road though might see it differently.....and you wouldn't have a defence if he/she chose to report you. Mind you, at least there's a chance of a let-off with a bobby!

Pete