Over 200,000 could get speed camera refund

Sir Jeremy

On 12 Apr, 01:54, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
> > On 11 Apr, 23:48, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> 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 <JN@NPPTG.com> said in
<_uWdnVFTo4nblZ3VnZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@pipex.net>:

>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 <JN@NPPTG.com> said in
> <_uWdnVFTo4nblZ3VnZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@pipex.net>:
>
>> 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

swen@mellis.me.uk wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:52:31 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> Colin Reed wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
>>> news:LKqdndhzEsetBJ3VnZ2dnUVZ8selnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
>>> 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.

news@mellis.me.uk

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:21:07 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>swen@mellis.me.uk wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:52:31 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin Reed wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:LKqdndhzEsetBJ3VnZ2dnUVZ8selnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>>>> 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:wPKdnd00B6YLfWLanZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net,
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> 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 <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> 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:wPKdnd00B6YLfWLanZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net,
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> 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 <J...@NPPTG.com> 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

The Luggage

On 13 Apr, 14:21, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> swen@mellis.me.uk wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:52:31 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
> >> Colin Reed wrote:
> >>> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:LKqdndhzEsetBJ3VnZ2dnUVZ8selnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> >>> 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_guideli...>
>
> >> 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?

Except that they are not. The relevant allowable tolerance for
speedometers is ZERO. As m ellis has already posted, and you snipped,
a speedometer must not underread. So if your speedo reads 70 mph, your
actual speed will be between 63 and 70.

> 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'm not the OP, but I think they add 10% and 2 mph because they know
they would have far too much work on their hands collecting the fines
and dishing out the points if they set it any closer to the limit.

TL

Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
> <4f4f171d-a755-4936-8308-06e4b7f998af@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> EXCLUSIVE 200,000 could get refunds of up to £13MILLION after driver
>> proves UK's most profitable speed camera is illegal due to poorly-lit
>> signs
>
> Yeah, right, like the plod who got away with it because the signs
> did not have a yellow border.

Regulations which only exist if the specified sign defining them exists,
can, by their very nature, have only been violated if the specified sign
actually does exist. Simple really.

> Why is it that obeying the speed
> limit is never an option?

If the technical requirements required to specify a speed limit have not
been satisfied, then there is /no/ speed limit to obey.

--
Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:12:02 +0100, Matt B
<matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> said in
<66h6mqF2k17uoU1@mid.individual.net>:

>> Yeah, right, like the plod who got away with it because the signs
>> did not have a yellow border.

>Regulations which only exist if the specified sign defining them exists,
>can, by their very nature, have only been violated if the specified sign
>actually does exist. Simple really.

The speed limit was correctly signed. The only error was in the
colour of the border of the camera sign. There was never any
suggestion that the *police driver* was unaware of the speed limit
or the fact that he was exceeding it.

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

Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:12:02 +0100, Matt B
> <matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> said in
> <66h6mqF2k17uoU1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>> Yeah, right, like the plod who got away with it because the signs
>>> did not have a yellow border.
>
>> Regulations which only exist if the specified sign defining them exists,
>> can, by their very nature, have only been violated if the specified sign
>> actually does exist. Simple really.
>
> The speed limit was correctly signed.

What was the defence then?

> The only error was in the
> colour of the border of the camera sign.

Did the sign comply with the appropriate sign regulations?

> There was never any
> suggestion that the *police driver* was unaware of the speed limit
> or the fact that he was exceeding it.

If the signs were not to specification, then, technically, no speed
limit was actually in force.

--
Matt B