In message , Bruce
writes

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?

All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines.

They never have had such an income stream. Money from speeding fines has
always gone to central government. All that local authorities (or,
strictly, groups of local authorities) got was the cost of processing
the fines, for which they had to apply to the DfT.

What local authorities are currently bleating about is the change
introduced in 2007, which means that they now can't even claim the cost
of processing fines. Instead they were given a Road Safety Grant, to
spend as they wished on a range of road safety measures, and which has
just been halved in value.
--
Paul Terry

Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is
foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the
posted limit.

ACPO's recommended +10%+2 notwithstanding...

ACPO also recommended upping the Motorway limit to 80mph, that was
ignored as well.

You don't understand the difference between recommending a change to
legislation (which requires political agreement) and recommending a
tolerance for enforcement (which doesn't)?

On 29 July, 12:57, Ken Wilshire wrote:
Nobody has yet pointed out that speed limits generally were set at the
nearest 10 mph lower than the 85th percentile (approx from memory) of
all road traffic on a stretch of road (blanket 30 mph zones excepted)
in the 1960s. *Therefore, "exceeding" a posted speed limit just means
that you are driving faster than the 85th percentile - not an offence
if you are driving sensibly.

Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power
steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the
stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. *I would like to see
these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry
conditions and one for wet. *Modern downward tinkering of speed limits
is practically all about anti-car, not common sense, cf ever
increasing swathes of 20 mph zones, etc.

Although a car in working order may have great capabilities, I still
feel unnerved when driven by someone who zooms up to traffic queues
and then brakes hard (stopping safely). I wouldn't bother
accelerating towards an obstruction and would save on both petrol and
brake pad by coasting gently towards it.

That way, even if the systems fail, far less harm is likely to result.

In message
, Ken
Wilshire writes

Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it
is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled
before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'.

Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the
cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the
potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section
of road.
--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the
cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the
potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section
of road.

It's no more or less "potentially unsafe" than changing lanes at any
other time.

It's precisely that "Change lanes? Oooh! Unsafe!" attitude which results
in the abysmal lane discipline in this country and the constant motorway
lane-widening which results from it.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
, Ken
Wilshire writes

Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it
is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled
before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'.

Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the
cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the
potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section
of road.

That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/

According to Collins, the need for Home Office Type Approval (HOTA)
may have given rise to the confusion. This, he says “is a form of
rigorous testing that any system must undergo before it can be used
for enforcement. Until recently, the only HOTA available applied to
cars maintaining their lanes.

“However, a new test schedule was carried out last year, which
means that average speed checking can be applied even where cars
change lanes.�

In message , David Walters
writes

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote:

Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the
cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the
potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section
of road.

That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/

Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed.
--
Paul Terry

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:01:56 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , David Walters
writes

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote:

Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the
cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the
potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section
of road.

That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/

Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed.

Did anyone believe it worked anyway? Why would anyone writing the software
make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? It makes
no sense whatsoever.

The best way of deafeting specs cameras is just remove your front number plate
which I've done on many an occasion. Or ride a motorbike.

B2003

In message
Adrian wrote:

Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is
foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the
posted limit.

ACPO's recommended +10%+2 notwithstanding...

ACPO also recommended upping the Motorway limit to 80mph, that was
ignored as well.

You don't understand the difference between recommending a change to
legislation (which requires political agreement) and recommending a
tolerance for enforcement (which doesn't)?

I do, I was just being sarcastic. They don't have much choice with the
tolerance, car speedometers are only legally required to be accurate within
10%.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
d wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:01:56 +0100 Paul Terry
wrote:
In message , David Walters
writes

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote:

Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the
cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the
potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured
section of road.

That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/

Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed.

Did anyone believe it worked anyway? Why would anyone writing the software
make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? It makes no
sense whatsoever.

IIRC in the original installations each lane was monitored by it's own set of
cameras. The assumption was each set was independent all through the chain.
Not necessarily true but urban myths get taken up very rapidly.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/