Ive seen the green van on the snake (give em a wave!), but have never seen the 2nd one, so thanks for the warning. Overtaking on a bike on the snake is too easy - you want to try it in an old diesel car! With mobile speed cameras, the policeman n their "superiors" should be arrested for wasting police time + taxpayers money. If my car gets broken into, what do the police do about it? give me a crime number. Do they investigate it? no, cos they`re too busy wasting time with mobile speed cameras
Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
@snifnscratch Hi, you misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
Hi, you misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
Hi, you misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
You misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
@snifnscratch Hi, you misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
When I see somebody driving like this for real,my biggest hope is that they kill themselves becasue they're putting my life and other drivers lives in danger.I totally get that it's like a Playstation game to see how many cars you can overtake,and no doubt you get a buzz,but for putting my life in danger,fuck you,and go kill yourself.Do the world a favour.
@winterlandboy Well, although I understand what you are saying, I hope they 'don't' kill themselves, as to do that they will have to hit another vehicle, or at the very least ruin the day of others, those people being the rescue services, the police force (bearers of bad news) or merely other drivers.
@PUSSYTICKLER01 No point in having a throttle cable if you're not allowed to take it to its stop. I bought a car that was advertised as a 150mph sport saloon. And so I did! No point in sticking to 70mph with 80mph in reserve all the time!
Drive fast but drive safe is all I say. No doubt I'll be shot down in flames by other YouTubers now?! Bring it on!
@lollygaggle Yes. German autobahns. Speed limits: Unrestricted. Accidents: Hardly any. UK motorways. Speed limits: 70/80mph. Accidents: High rates. Accident rates in Europe (non-UK): Low. Accident rates in UK on low speed roads: High.
Speed camera vehicle operatives are in it for the deviousness and money.
However, City speeds being 30, should remain at 30, otherwise drivers become impatient and start overtaking or driving too close, putting people at risk.
@digitalbroadcaster 'More than 65 people were injured in the crash involving 259 vehicles which consisted of a series of three pile-ups on a 20-mile stretch. They happened on the A2 autobahn that links Berlin with the Dutch border near the city of Braunschweig and Hanover.
More than 350 firemen and other emergency service workers were called in to help clear the carriageways and get to the wounded.'
@lollygaggle Law of averages I suppose? Nine times out of ten, these roads are clear. I have done a lot of continental driving 2000miles round trips and have never seen even as much as a shunt until I reach the dreaded M25 back in the UK.
Drivers also slam on the brakes when a speed trap is noticed ahead, causing all sort of rearward issues, hence nullifying the 'safety' issue of cameras.
Anyway, I have said enough about this topic now and will resume my YouTube trawling.
Speed enforcement has run at a loss since 2007 when the netting-off scheme was cancelled & only running costs were returned, meaning all incentive to maximise detections was removed. In other words, funding was completely stopped in March of this year as it was costing fat more to run than it generated.
@lollygaggle I thought at one stage, that the high cost of fuel would stop drivers tearing down the roads. It seems not as I'm frequently overtaken by seemingly rocket-powered cars. I stick to 70mph now as I deliberately bought a slow vehicle to keep my license.
@lollygaggle Well, depending on your age, I could be more British than you. As for the get rich quick scheme, Safety Camera's, as they pretend to be, are not so. I have seen many of these vehicles on my travels (I travel a lot in my job both in the UK and also overseas).
Almost EVERY 'Safety Camera Vehicle' I have seen, has been semi-concealed, by way of either over the brow of a hill, parked just off of a bridge, and in one case (the one where I got caught) behind an unmarked vehicle with a trailer hitched to it with a spare wheel leaning against it (As if the occupants were changing a flat tyre).
So THIS is why I firmly believe that these traps are there JUST to generate money from easy targets. When I was 'photographed' speeding, I had my SatNav set to chime at 51MPH. However, it didn't as I spotted this 'broken down van' and slowed down just in case of hitting someone there. Yet, they still sent me a NIP stating that I was doing 53MPH on a 50 Duel Carriageway. So YES, certainly a get-rich-quick scheme. I am so so glad that they are being removed from service!
Actually, mistake above - The van was not behind an unmarked vehicle with a trailer, as it WAS the unmarked vehicle with a trailer. I spotted the camera ports as I drove past it and was pleased that I was travelling within the limits. I asked for evidence and they said they did not have it.
Without a doubt then, a scheme to make easy money. Plus, don't forget, my Driver Awareness instructor said it was more than likely wrong anyway as cameras are not even calibrated.
And lollygaggle, I'm just wondering whether you will be a Traffic Warden or clamper when you lose your 'Safety' camera vehicle job, as you obviously don't like drivers. Plus you hide behind an anonymous account. That says a lot about you. But, me being British, still wishes you a great Christmas and New Year.
There is no such thing as 'Traffic Wardens', they were replaced several years ago with Civil Enforcement Officers.
Anonymous account?
Can you cite the financial profit figures that you suggest make someone 'rich', & your sources please?
Mobile 'cameras' are not calibrated, the camera part being a simple video camera. The LTI Speedscope (not a camera) that measures your speed most certainly is though.
@lollygaggle Ha. I didn't know that Traffic Wardens no longer existed as I never illegally park.
Anyway, I'm tiring of this conversation now so will not pursue it. At least I'll never get caught again as my vehicle would surely fall apart if it went fast enough. Plus, being a 3200cc engined vehicle, I wouldn't want to give my money to the fuel companies as they earn enough from drivers across the board.
@lollygaggle I can see details of everyone else. However, I looked at your account to see if you had a clue that you were involved in the industry we are talking about, but the account just showed up as concealed/no detail.
As you say, this is your choice as there is no obligation to show detail. I'm ceasing this conversation now as it has reached a dead end. Have a safe life.
Quote; '...so glad that they are being removed from service!'.
However, you do not say what?
Static cameras such the Gatso are indeed on the decline due to huge running costs, funding being withdrawn back in April '11. However, mobile enforcement is increasing at a substantial pace to fill the gaps, & with no warning signs, can manifest themselves on any road.
53mph in a 50 would mean the constabulary was not in the nat scheme.
@lollygaggle It isn't exactly rocket science what the subject is about. No offence to you. I know that some of the fixed camera's used to use 35mm film and have now turned digital. It is also refreshing to note that more drivers coming through a 'speed trap' are 'flashing' to oncoming vehicles with a warning, therefore giving indication of impending 'issues' ahead. A classic case of Public vs Authorities.
Anyway, as mentioned, I no longer drive fast now as I've had my fun.
@digitalbroadcaster Regarding your comment on drivers flashing others as a warning;
When mobile enforcement is carried out in an urban environment with junctions both behind & preceding the site, it is relatively common for a vehicle to be waiting at a junction to enter the main carriageway. Then someone flashes an oncoming vehicle to somehow warn them & the waiting driver sees that as an invitation to pull out = collision occurs.
@lollygaggle I've never been flashed a warning at a junction, and neither would 'I' warn drivers at a junction. Always on a straight road and a little way before the 'trap'. Besides, flashing somebody to come out is illegal, so I heard?
@digitalbroadcaster It isn't about what you would do deliberately, it is how a 'flash' is perceived by others. They see the lights & pull out thinking it is for them.
@lollygaggle As I wrote, I've not seen anyone flash their lights as a warning at a junction. It is normally a little way before the trap, on a straight road or even on a slight bend.
If somebody flashed me on a junction, I wouldn't associate that signal with a speed trap. Hoever, if I had already passed the aforementioned junction, I would assume the signal means 'caution ahead', to which I would slow down.
@digitalbroadcaster There are countless mobile enforcement operations taking place every day all over the country, on all types of carriageway, near bends, approaching hills & just over the apex & near or even adjacent to junctions. Because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean to say it isn't happening. I have even seen pedestrians on a central island step out believing they have been flashed to cross, when it was a shortsighted motorist attempting to warn oncoming cars.
@lollygaggle Well, that is also the pedestrians fault for foolishly venturing in front of a vehicle that has not slowed down after flashing. I'd never cross if flashed, unless the driver is obviously slowing down. I have noticed more burned out fixed cameras though.
Finally, are you associated with the police, or the Safety Enforcement brigade? You don't need to answer obviously. Oh, and Merry Christmas to you and your family, once again.
@digitalbroadcaster Mobile speed enforcement is carried out where the speeding problem is acknowledged as being at its worst.
Every road is a combination of bends & straights, so you state that they position themselves over the brow of a hill. If a vehicle is thus detected that far above the posted threshold when the road ahead is invisible due to the masking created by the hill's brow, then clearly the driver needs education.
@lollygaggle The road where I was photographed, was on a straight and clear duel carriageway on the M3. No bends, just a gradual brow of a hill, leading into a downhill slope. No risks involved to anybody. Actually, where the Camera Safety Vehicle was parked was dangerous, as it was not fully on the grass verge, therefore causing others (and myself) to move towards the centre of the road. So this 'safety vehicle' was far from safely parked.
I normally drive with an on-board dash camera fitted, recording any events that unfold ahead of me. Unfortunately on that day, the system was not in use as the camera was used on another project.
@lollygaggle I thought at one stage, the high cost of fuel would stop drivers tearing down the roads. It seems not as I'm frequently overtaken by seemingly rocket-powered cars. I stick to 70mph now as I deliberately bought a slow vehicle to keep my license.
All over Aust governments are becoming more addicted to the cash gained by this immoral practice, trying to justify it with lies about "safety" despite the evidence that the opposite is true. They even change the laws and speed zones, in order to maximise profit. Nowhere is this more true than in Victoria, where this addiction has become like a cancer. Labour started it, Liberal had the chance to correct the balance, but did not. There is only one solution, next election, put lab and Lib last
What annoys me about the location is the point that they sit on a downhill slope. Just backing off the pedals means my car can drift over the limit without me noticing. No comments about well you should notice then, I'd be concentraiting on the cars in the layby ensuring they aren't going to pull out on me and the corners ahead. Not my speed.
@KidStotty Modern vehicles do not 'drift' up in speed unless you increase pressure on the throttle or are on a downward gradient & you don't maintain velocity with judical use of the braking system.
Experienced motorists woukld instantly know if their vehicle was going faster.
@Innovater6 What a Moronic statement.... Marked speed Camera Vans, Gatso's They are Speed deterrents and yes maybe they do increase safety on roads where they are clearly visible.... however how is a undercover green transit van with no police markings on it? increasing safety.... it doesnt at all. its just generating revenue... people who get caught out by it are still going to speed...
@youlooklikeawasteman The issue you miss is that when stopped by a police officer, he may be tied up with the driver for as much as 15mins. This means that if he also has to chase the vehicle, it increases the possibility of a collision & he can only deal with a couple of offenders an hour.
Mobile enforcement that records to DVD can identify EVERY offender, thus ensuring every one gets a notice of intended prosecution, points, a fine or the chance of an awareness course, so much better.
@lollygaggle And also the issue you miss. is quite clearly this is not a deterrant. is it? a dark green unassuming unmarked van? that is not a deterrant.... Dictionary Defines Deter - to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding. a big yellow gatso on the side of the road in a residential area. is a deterant.. as people will see it and think time to slow down i dont want a fine and 3pts.. however undercover camera vans is just catching people out. its not detering people from speeding.
@youlooklikeawasteman It a money catcher, quite simply. Too camouflaged to be a highlighted warning to slow down. Wouldn't it be nice if someone drove past and threw a big balloon of paint through the window!
@digitalbroadcaster There is no requirement to get people to slow down. Such operations are designed to target high-end speeders (especially motorcyclists).
Speed enforcement has run at a loss since the netting-off scheme finished in Feb 2007. If such operations made the government money, then why has funding been withdrawn?
@lollygaggle I agree that some drivers drive too fast for set road conditions. However, 'catching by way of photograph' a speeding vehicle still makes money. I got caught speeding by THREE MPH over a 50 limit and chose a Drivers course. The 'instructor' said that most cameras weren't even calibrated and he doubted if I was speeding. His words were "It brings in the revenue". So I suggest YOU do the research before pretending to be all high and mighty with this sham!
I believe that you, lollygaggle, are involved in this 'get rich quick' industry in some way or another. You seem to know an awful lot about speed camera's etc.
I also bet that YOU hardly ever stick to the speed limits either!
@lollygaggle reading further into your comments I dont actually think you read what i said. with your little rant about police chases and safety... has no bearng on anything. fact of the matter is.. if there was a truvelo or a gatso or any other form of speed camera there clearly visible it would reduce motorists speed. as oppose to a undercover van which infact could cause somebody who is speeding to brake heavily when they realise and loose control. fact of the matter is its not a deterant.
@youlooklikeawasteman Actually, at the time the above clip was posted, speed enforcement was running at a considerable national loss. Revenue was never a consideration.
@lollygaggle your been rather General. From what I've read in a lot of Areas the grants were given as general Road Safety improvement grants as oppose to grants specifically for speed camera's. Council's or whatever bodies deal with it will have expenditure in other area's of road safety improvement... so yes.. whilst They maybe dont pay as much back to the treasury as was invested in said "Road safety improvement, which is more than a few gatso's Fact remains They still generate revenue..
@youlooklikeawasteman You haven't grasped the point about the fines. Running costs were returned from Feb 2007 when the netting-off hypothecation changes kicked in & these outweighed what was being generated, so although as you say 'revenue' was generated, it was costing more to run than came in. Partnerships had no input with road improvements, different body altogether.
Such mobile operations as above are not meant to deter, they are designed to detect.
in north wales there is a 10% le-way on it so as i was going under what is 10% added to 60? its 66 soo as iwas going under the speed i will be okayy :P
i was going 65mph in a 60 today and i went past a speed van but it was on the other side of the road can i still get me the back of it was facing oncoming traffic and iwas going away from it ?
@lollygaggle Just been told that i should be okay only one camera was on AND there was another car coming the other way by law they have to focus on the car that is on the side of the street they are monitoring
@MrJoshKearnz You have been misinformed, what you have been told is complete nonsense. The same LTI/video camera combination enforces in bnoth directions, there isn't two systems running - just one. There is no law regarding sides of the street - one speedscope, both directions & the officer can choose whichever vehicle he likes.
That said, 65mph in a 60 zone is well inside ACPO Guidelines, it is very unlikely you will receive a NIP.
Im not biker but its normally motorists knocking bikers off not checking there mirrors when should of, biker arnt all at fault an there not scum speed camera's are scum an whoever agree's with them burn in hell.
@lollygaggle If you read the log book it asks that any changes, colour etc. the DVLA has to be notified otherwise you maybe fined. hmmmm. changing van colour from white to green etc or even blue. just a comment.
What's the problem with camera vans changing their looks to catch people off guard? If people drove responsibly and didn't speed they wouldn't have to worry.
It's there to catch fucking idiots speeding on this dangerous road. The clown who has filmed this is a prime example of an accident waiting to happen - just hope he slams into a tree rather another road user. In fact I hope he's dead already.
Speeding isn't an issue. In the entire history of human kind, not a soul has died of speed. Bad driving is an issue, and it's getting worse since the government decided in the 80s that anyone who could point a car in approximately the right direction could have a licence. Some of the worst drivers never break the speed limit, but do stupid things like the twat in the video who crossed the double lines on a blind bend. Those sort of drivers are the ones we need to punish.
@guili191 You are misinformed - the impact velocity at the moment of a collision is the determining factor of the level of trauma &/or degree of damage. This is easily demonstrated; find a nice motorway overpass & drive into it at 1mph. Write down the effect on you & your vehicle. Now reverse off & do the same at 70mph. Again, jot down your findings then report back here & we can discuss the differences.
Sorry. Absolute nonsense. I said that no-one has ever died of speed, and I invite you to cite me a single case where someone has. Now, to collide at speed is a completely different matter. If you're suggesting that we should never exceed a speed at which a fatality may occur when two vehicles collide, that I think we might as well all stay at home.
@guili191 You confuse the cause of the collision with the cause of death. Examples? Try every stationary pedestrian hit by a vehicle over the posted urban 30mph threshold - they died due to the impact velocity. Their death certificate does not show the cause of death as 'bad driving'.
@lollygaggle In your example the pedestrian died because he was hit by a vehicle. The driver, presumably survived so he didn't die of speed, and surely you're not suggesting that this is an example of 'good driving'? Of course there are circumstances where to drive at excessive speed is bad driving. But the pedestrian could, if he/she was careless, as easily have been killed by a bus travelling at 10mph. Your example doesn't defeat the logic of my argument that no-one dies of speed.
@DerbyBiker it is not a matter of if but when on a bike, you add the fact you do not know what other motorists are doing and your stupidity in the way you ride, race bikes real pro's race on a track, they do not put people's lives at risk, your such a huge hotshot and a great rider, bet your not brave enough to tell the world who you really are!!!! See your not so big are you idiot
Why do you not show us how great you really are, like winning the a superbike GP or a 12 hour bike moto or a big race, no that's right your a legend who would rather say look at me look at me I'm special, instead of really putting it to the test.
@DerbyBiker Oh yes what are you doing today? Well I'm going out on my bike and cause as much drama on the roads as i can, because i do not care about anyone but me, see look at me I am so special on my bike. I am a motorcycle hero. I just wish my lunchbox was bigger so you could all see me.
@DerbyBiker Stalkers can usually be avoided by breaking your pattern. Simply do not turn up at the same location time after time & ignore their literary submissions.
Bikers (sigh), not the brightest section of the society.
@DerbyBiker stalker!!!!! you put yourself out there, buddy Australia is a long way from you, and how lucky are we that your not here, you would not survive 5 mins in this country..... When do you compete against the big boys on a race track we want to see how good you really are.....
@SierraKilo9 Well, like the clown on the bike said, sorry to disappoint you but I'm still alive. The reason I hoped he was dead was so that this cretin never has the opportunity of wiping out mum, dad and two kids driving normally on our roads. However, thank you for your good wishes.
@Beenanddoneit Whether Derbybiker is riding like an idiot or not i must be missing the point. when i see a high vis police car/van/bike or other with all the stripes and blue lights etc etc, i check my speed. thus, job done. I am now driving within the law if i wasnt already. meaning the road is a safer place. However. If the police continue to play hide and seek using unmarked cars, (which by the way, stick out like sore thumb) and builders vans and so on, then that will not save lives.
@WEU239L Oh hang on, i get it. Its about making money for the government isnt it lol. If road safety was on the top of the list then they would just put speed bumps in the worst areas and high vis cars so people notice them. It might be worth mentioning at this point too that speeding only accounts for 6% of all RTA's. (road traffic accidents). so why dont the government invest some of this money into the other 94% and reduce the deaths on our roads. Im not saying speeding is big or clever but..
@WEU239L speeding isnt the sole cause of accidents. Most of the time i drive within the law but i still have my laser jammer switched on just incase there are any battered old renult masters parked on double yellows with a dodgy looking camera peeking out or perhaps a discovery with a horse box on the back. Yes folks the police will stoop to any level to grab yer cash so watch out.
@WEU239L no mate speed bumps have been proven to slow emergency vehicles so their use is restricted in certain areas speed cameras are the best option in such locations.
Thank you. I appreciate your profound statement and I can see you are an educated man. However, in the context of your statement there should be no appostrophe in cameras.
@Beenanddoneit In your comment 1 year ago on the Audi Q7, you stated and I quote 'It's 'bad ass' all right as bad as you can get on the roads today. Ugly as sin!'
However, in the context of your statement, it should be 'alright' and not 'all right'.
Be very careful of playing the 'Spelling Police' card, when you are equally at fault.
Surely with speed camera vans and radar guns they are looking for your number plate, gues we are alright then! but thanks for posting the video, i was there today and was a little disappointed with the roads, but i do live next to Hartside
I was driving on the snake at about 11 pm last night and just after you get past doctors gate and approach the summit (travelling from glossop towards sheffield.) there was a white transit van parked on the verge with its back doors open, very suspicious. I think a driver coming the other way warned me by flashing his head lights, but I cant be sure as it may of just looked like that. I wasnt speeding anyway as I never do these days, but just be warned, any vehicle at the side could be a trap
@6shnuggle6 You are grossly misinformed. Motorcycles present no problem whatsoever for mobile enforcement.
Those who approach with the rider facing the laser are pinged as any other vehicle. Then, depending on what equipment is being used, the front facing camera will be used in conjunction with the Commander's quad system & record the rear of the bike as it passes.
Failing that, the officer will simply look out of the window & write the registration down.
@lollygaggle You seem to be forgetting the fact that you can stop short, take your number plate off the back, stuff it down your leathers, pull a u turn and ride off and there's nothing the pigs in the van can do about it. BTW it also means nothing if one police officer writes down your registration, you need the statement of two police officers to provide enough evidence for a conviction in court.
@char19822 Not so, a single police staff member's statement is all that is required to secure a conviction. The LTI Speedscope is the 'other' witness.
@lollygaggle You seem to be missing the point, the video evidence is not what you would be contesting in court, it is the officer's identification of the number plate, hence what the video evidence actually shows. Two police officer's statements are required to verify any detail in a case, such as number plates, who was driving etc. I have won court cases against the police on exactly this technicality and had many other charges abandoned, god bless the policy of one PC and one PCSO per car.
@char19822 You simply don't understand the premise of Safety Camera Partnerships, you are bogged down in Vascar & regular officers. SCP's operate single civilians who, in conjunction with an LTI 20.20 & either video or DVD & the fact they have recorded the number visually is all they need. What 'technicality' do you refer to exactly? Name the legislation as you have experience of it??
@lollygaggle It's true I have never had to contest a case involving SCP, the only similar case one involving road side video purporting to show an offence, a PC plus a possibly invented off duty police witness. However, as far as I am aware all SCP evidence gives the police the power to do is make a section 172 request, which can be filled in in indefinite language and retracted in court (as people have done). I don't have access to a legal library atm, but the law generally obeys logical rules.
@char19822 I am unsure what advantage being unclear would be when responding to the s.172? Unless the address exists & the named driver responds, a summons will be forthcoming for failure to supply.
@lollygaggle No, fill it in giving a clear and correct name and address and then refute the allegations in indefinite language i.e. "I do not think I did..." "...I politely request disclosure of any evidence to the contrary..." with the implication that the named person is only named to avoid prosecution for failing to fill the form in. Indefinite to avoid problems if conclusive evidence is presented. Anything else and you've potentially already screwed yourself before court.
@lollygaggle No you are absolutely incorrect about the evidence, you have a right to view it before the trial in the interests of "resolving the matter". You never bring the identification of the driver/vehicle into it until court for this reason, you lay the groundwork for this with the language in the section 172 form. Don't tell me you're one of the arseholes who sits in the speed camera vans, deluding yourself into thinking the system is infallible and you're making the roads safer?
@char19822 You misunderstand & appear highly confused about s,172 .- if you aren't the driver at the time of offence, then you will not have access to evidence due to data protection as the incident relates to someone else. Identifying the driver is crucial & if you can, then why wouldn't you? Wasting the court's time will simply increase the fine.
There is no legal requirement to display camera signs anywhere they are used, forces just tend to as a deterrent factor and a a way to show that they're not just concerned about raising revenue.
@guili191 You'll have no problem citing sources for this claim then - this is the greatest source of reference known to mankind after all.
Since the hypothecation/netting-off changes (Feb 2007), SCP's are not allowed to make a profit from speeding fines.It all goes to the government & only running costs are returned in the form of an annual road safety grant.
@lollygaggle My source is the Treasury but, since it is populated by a cadre of Machiavellian conspirators, I shouldn't be in the least surprised if it's a lie.
@guili191 Netting-off by councils was stopped by the previous government 3.5 years ago - there are many links on the internet that detail this The Treasury can't 'lie' about it - it is common knowledge that it no longer happens. You simply haven't caught up yet.
@guili191 It isn't about winning, it is about accurate information.
Speed doesn't kill? if you'd attended any RTC's in an official capacity, you'd appreciate the difference between hitting a pedestrian at 20mph & 35mph? Impact velocity is the single biggest contributory factor to the level of physical trauma in a collision.
Hit something/someone at a velocity sufficient to generate fatal injuries = you/they die. That's at the heart of the 'It's 30 for a reason' campaign.
I hate to be obvious, but it seems to me that it would be preferable not to hit a pedestrian at any speed. And it might be as well to admit that, sometimes, the pedestrian is at fault. But that would be a bit non PC in these times when the driver is considered to be responsible for everything irrespective of the circumstances.
@guili191 The determination of 'fault' is not under discussion - yes, better not to have any road traffic collision, but it happens every day. This is what 'Speeding Kills' means, not 'Speeding Causes Accidents' - more, when a collision takes place, the greater the impact velocity, the chances of someone dying go up. You've rightly identified that people walk out in front of cars, that will never be stopped, but 'It's 30 for a reason' & the reason is as I have just established.
everyone google smidsy card its a group of lawyers who are bikers they will take these ass holes to court i found them at the carole nash NEC bike show this year if you have newer footage it would make life easier google them for the number or message me they also take gov to court for drops due to shite road surface and debri on roads eg diesel
message me if you want more info or their number
ps you need to ring the police if you slide so you can claim
hi mate, can you say what you could take them to court for exactly? what they are doing is perfectly legal in the UK there is no legislation that says they cannot work covertly
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@gIoucesterharry no they are not unless they have a sign warning drivers that there will be a speed a speed camera mobile or static this is why you see camera signs when there isn't one it is because of mobile cameras if no sign is shown then it is classed as entrapment and this is illegal
the reason I asked is because I have been involved in a speeding case where the defence was no signs being put out. the magistrate was very clear there is absolutely no legislation that says there has to any signage at all. you say it is illegal, what law or legislation does it contravene? from the research i have done, i can find nothing
I think the point is that the police are doing nothing to try to persuade drivers to slow down, but are merely punishing them after the event. How does this square with their contention that they want to prevent drivers from exceeding the speed limit? The true fact is that drivers are an easy catch, fines are useful for local police forces, and it makes their performance figures look good.
@monkey01302 Safety Camera Partnerships do not make a single penny of profit from speed enforcement operations.
Equally, the government has no say in the positioning of cameras or how they are implemented - the suggestion that 'greed' is in any way involved is simply misplaced.
Why should there even be any intention of getting anyone to slow down? Every motorist knows the system of signage in place, you choose to ignore it, you risk facing the consequences.
so if they dont make any money why isnt the van bright yellow and a picture of a camera on it so you slow down in a high risk area rather than a green van parked next to trees. and as for your comment why should there be any intention of getting anyone to slow down? the whole point of having speed cameras is to put off speeders in accident hot spots. not to hand out fines. you probably think all cameras should be painted in camouflage.
I acknowledge your confusion, There is no 'if they don't make any money', for iIn 2007 it all changed, which now means that the government now get every penny of the fines & only return exact running costs to partnerships.
There are then two types of enforcement; the first being police based & they can park where they like, with no warning signs whatsoever & in covert vehicles. Next, although they could do the same, partnerships tend to use marked vehicles at hotspots using signage.
You called the guy at 4:06 an idiot, but he did nothing wrong. He is allowed to overtake slow moving traffic even where there is a full white line in the centre of the road.
Go read your highway code if you don't bevieve me.
@blackturbans It wasn't the white line that was being highlighted - it was the overtaking on a blind bend, placing himself on the wrong side of the road with no clue what was coming the other way & with cyclists on his nearside.
You can only overtake if it is safe to do so & there is enough space to do so - it wasn't on both counts.
Go read your highway code, section 166 if you don't believe me.
Who is that question directed at? Certainly not me as you didn't hit the 'Reply' button.
If it is - static cameras (Gatso's, RedSpeed etc), account for @ 75% of all national speeding prosecutions. These are operated by Safety Camera Partnerships (administered by police civilian staff), regular police having no operational input. Then you have mobile enforcement, again done by civilians which makes up the remaining 23%.
Ive seen the green van on the snake (give em a wave!), but have never seen the 2nd one, so thanks for the warning. Overtaking on a bike on the snake is too easy - you want to try it in an old diesel car! With mobile speed cameras, the policeman n their "superiors" should be arrested for wasting police time + taxpayers money. If my car gets broken into, what do the police do about it? give me a crime number. Do they investigate it? no, cos they`re too busy wasting time with mobile speed cameras
snifnscratch 6 days ago
@snifnscratch Hi, you misunderstand.
Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snifnscratch Hi, you misunderstand.
Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snifnscratch Hi, you misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, you misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, you misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
You misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snifnscratch Hi, you misunderstand. Speed enforcement is completely self-funding, the tax payer does not foot the bill since the funding changes of April 2011. Civilians account for 99% of all national speed enforcement, meaning police officers are freed up to deal with other matters.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
Shame it always takes a healthy police presence to see you bikers riding sensibly.
mentalextra 1 month ago 4
When I see somebody driving like this for real,my biggest hope is that they kill themselves becasue they're putting my life and other drivers lives in danger.I totally get that it's like a Playstation game to see how many cars you can overtake,and no doubt you get a buzz,but for putting my life in danger,fuck you,and go kill yourself.Do the world a favour.
winterlandboy 1 month ago
@winterlandboy Well, although I understand what you are saying, I hope they 'don't' kill themselves, as to do that they will have to hit another vehicle, or at the very least ruin the day of others, those people being the rescue services, the police force (bearers of bad news) or merely other drivers.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
156 mph i got outa my k4 gixer an i loved it@who gives a fuck ,bikes are ment to be ridden hard anyone who doesnt can suck my arse!!!!
PUSSYTICKLER01 2 months ago
@PUSSYTICKLER01 No point in having a throttle cable if you're not allowed to take it to its stop. I bought a car that was advertised as a 150mph sport saloon. And so I did! No point in sticking to 70mph with 80mph in reserve all the time!
Drive fast but drive safe is all I say. No doubt I'll be shot down in flames by other YouTubers now?! Bring it on!
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster Can you elaborate as to the justification of ignoring the posted thresholds on public roads?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle Yes. German autobahns. Speed limits: Unrestricted. Accidents: Hardly any. UK motorways. Speed limits: 70/80mph. Accidents: High rates. Accident rates in Europe (non-UK): Low. Accident rates in UK on low speed roads: High.
Speed camera vehicle operatives are in it for the deviousness and money.
However, City speeds being 30, should remain at 30, otherwise drivers become impatient and start overtaking or driving too close, putting people at risk.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster 'More than 65 people were injured in the crash involving 259 vehicles which consisted of a series of three pile-ups on a 20-mile stretch. They happened on the A2 autobahn that links Berlin with the Dutch border near the city of Braunschweig and Hanover.
More than 350 firemen and other emergency service workers were called in to help clear the carriageways and get to the wounded.'
Yep, safe as houses.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle Good, so you agree then. Safe as houses. ;o)
That is a LOT of cars!
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
Comment removed
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lollygaggle Law of averages I suppose? Nine times out of ten, these roads are clear. I have done a lot of continental driving 2000miles round trips and have never seen even as much as a shunt until I reach the dreaded M25 back in the UK.
Drivers also slam on the brakes when a speed trap is noticed ahead, causing all sort of rearward issues, hence nullifying the 'safety' issue of cameras.
Anyway, I have said enough about this topic now and will resume my YouTube trawling.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster Can you elaborate as to the get rich quick comment?
Speed enforcement has run at a loss since 2007 when the netting-off scheme was cancelled & only running costs were returned, meaning all incentive to maximise detections was removed. In other words, funding was completely stopped in March of this year as it was costing fat more to run than it generated.
It is all on the net - research it.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle I thought at one stage, that the high cost of fuel would stop drivers tearing down the roads. It seems not as I'm frequently overtaken by seemingly rocket-powered cars. I stick to 70mph now as I deliberately bought a slow vehicle to keep my license.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster I see, you are not British, that explains a great deal.
You must have missed the question; 'Can you elaborate as to the get rich quick comment?'
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle Well, depending on your age, I could be more British than you. As for the get rich quick scheme, Safety Camera's, as they pretend to be, are not so. I have seen many of these vehicles on my travels (I travel a lot in my job both in the UK and also overseas).
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
Almost EVERY 'Safety Camera Vehicle' I have seen, has been semi-concealed, by way of either over the brow of a hill, parked just off of a bridge, and in one case (the one where I got caught) behind an unmarked vehicle with a trailer hitched to it with a spare wheel leaning against it (As if the occupants were changing a flat tyre).
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
So THIS is why I firmly believe that these traps are there JUST to generate money from easy targets. When I was 'photographed' speeding, I had my SatNav set to chime at 51MPH. However, it didn't as I spotted this 'broken down van' and slowed down just in case of hitting someone there. Yet, they still sent me a NIP stating that I was doing 53MPH on a 50 Duel Carriageway. So YES, certainly a get-rich-quick scheme. I am so so glad that they are being removed from service!
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
Actually, mistake above - The van was not behind an unmarked vehicle with a trailer, as it WAS the unmarked vehicle with a trailer. I spotted the camera ports as I drove past it and was pleased that I was travelling within the limits. I asked for evidence and they said they did not have it.
Without a doubt then, a scheme to make easy money. Plus, don't forget, my Driver Awareness instructor said it was more than likely wrong anyway as cameras are not even calibrated.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
And lollygaggle, I'm just wondering whether you will be a Traffic Warden or clamper when you lose your 'Safety' camera vehicle job, as you obviously don't like drivers. Plus you hide behind an anonymous account. That says a lot about you. But, me being British, still wishes you a great Christmas and New Year.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster Thank you for your seasonal good tidings.
There is no such thing as 'Traffic Wardens', they were replaced several years ago with Civil Enforcement Officers.
Anonymous account?
Can you cite the financial profit figures that you suggest make someone 'rich', & your sources please?
Mobile 'cameras' are not calibrated, the camera part being a simple video camera. The LTI Speedscope (not a camera) that measures your speed most certainly is though.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle Ha. I didn't know that Traffic Wardens no longer existed as I never illegally park.
Anyway, I'm tiring of this conversation now so will not pursue it. At least I'll never get caught again as my vehicle would surely fall apart if it went fast enough. Plus, being a 3200cc engined vehicle, I wouldn't want to give my money to the fuel companies as they earn enough from drivers across the board.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster Can you detail what your account reveals above & beyond my own? In other words, how is your's less anonymous than mine?
There is no requirement to reveal anything about yourself whatsoever, other than what the user determines reasonable.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle I can see details of everyone else. However, I looked at your account to see if you had a clue that you were involved in the industry we are talking about, but the account just showed up as concealed/no detail.
As you say, this is your choice as there is no obligation to show detail. I'm ceasing this conversation now as it has reached a dead end. Have a safe life.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster You state that you are;
Quote; '...so glad that they are being removed from service!'.
However, you do not say what?
Static cameras such the Gatso are indeed on the decline due to huge running costs, funding being withdrawn back in April '11. However, mobile enforcement is increasing at a substantial pace to fill the gaps, & with no warning signs, can manifest themselves on any road.
53mph in a 50 would mean the constabulary was not in the nat scheme.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle It isn't exactly rocket science what the subject is about. No offence to you. I know that some of the fixed camera's used to use 35mm film and have now turned digital. It is also refreshing to note that more drivers coming through a 'speed trap' are 'flashing' to oncoming vehicles with a warning, therefore giving indication of impending 'issues' ahead. A classic case of Public vs Authorities.
Anyway, as mentioned, I no longer drive fast now as I've had my fun.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster Regarding your comment on drivers flashing others as a warning;
When mobile enforcement is carried out in an urban environment with junctions both behind & preceding the site, it is relatively common for a vehicle to be waiting at a junction to enter the main carriageway. Then someone flashes an oncoming vehicle to somehow warn them & the waiting driver sees that as an invitation to pull out = collision occurs.
Refreshing? Nah, just dangerous.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle I've never been flashed a warning at a junction, and neither would 'I' warn drivers at a junction. Always on a straight road and a little way before the 'trap'. Besides, flashing somebody to come out is illegal, so I heard?
So, yeah, refreshing, as in one up to the public.
Do you happen to live on YouTube? :o)
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster It isn't about what you would do deliberately, it is how a 'flash' is perceived by others. They see the lights & pull out thinking it is for them.
It is not illegal no.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle As I wrote, I've not seen anyone flash their lights as a warning at a junction. It is normally a little way before the trap, on a straight road or even on a slight bend.
If somebody flashed me on a junction, I wouldn't associate that signal with a speed trap. Hoever, if I had already passed the aforementioned junction, I would assume the signal means 'caution ahead', to which I would slow down.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster There are countless mobile enforcement operations taking place every day all over the country, on all types of carriageway, near bends, approaching hills & just over the apex & near or even adjacent to junctions. Because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean to say it isn't happening. I have even seen pedestrians on a central island step out believing they have been flashed to cross, when it was a shortsighted motorist attempting to warn oncoming cars.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle Well, that is also the pedestrians fault for foolishly venturing in front of a vehicle that has not slowed down after flashing. I'd never cross if flashed, unless the driver is obviously slowing down. I have noticed more burned out fixed cameras though.
Finally, are you associated with the police, or the Safety Enforcement brigade? You don't need to answer obviously. Oh, and Merry Christmas to you and your family, once again.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
Comment removed
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster Mobile speed enforcement is carried out where the speeding problem is acknowledged as being at its worst.
Every road is a combination of bends & straights, so you state that they position themselves over the brow of a hill. If a vehicle is thus detected that far above the posted threshold when the road ahead is invisible due to the masking created by the hill's brow, then clearly the driver needs education.
Police can enforce anywhere - no rules.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle The road where I was photographed, was on a straight and clear duel carriageway on the M3. No bends, just a gradual brow of a hill, leading into a downhill slope. No risks involved to anybody. Actually, where the Camera Safety Vehicle was parked was dangerous, as it was not fully on the grass verge, therefore causing others (and myself) to move towards the centre of the road. So this 'safety vehicle' was far from safely parked.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
I normally drive with an on-board dash camera fitted, recording any events that unfold ahead of me. Unfortunately on that day, the system was not in use as the camera was used on another project.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lollygaggle I thought at one stage, the high cost of fuel would stop drivers tearing down the roads. It seems not as I'm frequently overtaken by seemingly rocket-powered cars. I stick to 70mph now as I deliberately bought a slow vehicle to keep my license.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
right so a utter stright about 500m or so and at the end a van money maker nothing else
fatchris101 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All over Aust governments are becoming more addicted to the cash gained by this immoral practice, trying to justify it with lies about "safety" despite the evidence that the opposite is true. They even change the laws and speed zones, in order to maximise profit. Nowhere is this more true than in Victoria, where this addiction has become like a cancer. Labour started it, Liberal had the chance to correct the balance, but did not. There is only one solution, next election, put lab and Lib last
1020080 5 months ago
What annoys me about the location is the point that they sit on a downhill slope. Just backing off the pedals means my car can drift over the limit without me noticing. No comments about well you should notice then, I'd be concentraiting on the cars in the layby ensuring they aren't going to pull out on me and the corners ahead. Not my speed.
KidStotty 8 months ago
@KidStotty Then don't back off the pedals, cover the brake, keep your speed in check - YOU are in control.
These things come with experience - give it time.
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@lollygaggle If I'm covering the brake but not looking at my speedomiter I would still drift over the speed limit...
KidStotty 7 months ago
@KidStotty Modern vehicles do not 'drift' up in speed unless you increase pressure on the throttle or are on a downward gradient & you don't maintain velocity with judical use of the braking system.
Experienced motorists woukld instantly know if their vehicle was going faster.
lollygaggle 7 months ago
nothing bad about speed cameras,. they are there for your safety
Innovater6 9 months ago
@Innovater6 LMAO oh for fucks sake you gotta be a copper LOL
farty1000 8 months ago
@farty1000 Same as lollygaggle then.
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Innovater6 shut up you stupid old codger.
SIBUK 6 months ago
@Innovater6 What a Moronic statement.... Marked speed Camera Vans, Gatso's They are Speed deterrents and yes maybe they do increase safety on roads where they are clearly visible.... however how is a undercover green transit van with no police markings on it? increasing safety.... it doesnt at all. its just generating revenue... people who get caught out by it are still going to speed...
youlooklikeawasteman 5 months ago
@youlooklikeawasteman The issue you miss is that when stopped by a police officer, he may be tied up with the driver for as much as 15mins. This means that if he also has to chase the vehicle, it increases the possibility of a collision & he can only deal with a couple of offenders an hour.
Mobile enforcement that records to DVD can identify EVERY offender, thus ensuring every one gets a notice of intended prosecution, points, a fine or the chance of an awareness course, so much better.
lollygaggle 4 months ago
@lollygaggle And also the issue you miss. is quite clearly this is not a deterrant. is it? a dark green unassuming unmarked van? that is not a deterrant.... Dictionary Defines Deter - to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding. a big yellow gatso on the side of the road in a residential area. is a deterant.. as people will see it and think time to slow down i dont want a fine and 3pts.. however undercover camera vans is just catching people out. its not detering people from speeding.
youlooklikeawasteman 2 months ago
@youlooklikeawasteman It a money catcher, quite simply. Too camouflaged to be a highlighted warning to slow down. Wouldn't it be nice if someone drove past and threw a big balloon of paint through the window!
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@digitalbroadcaster There is no requirement to get people to slow down. Such operations are designed to target high-end speeders (especially motorcyclists).
Speed enforcement has run at a loss since the netting-off scheme finished in Feb 2007. If such operations made the government money, then why has funding been withdrawn?
Do some research before commenting please.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle I agree that some drivers drive too fast for set road conditions. However, 'catching by way of photograph' a speeding vehicle still makes money. I got caught speeding by THREE MPH over a 50 limit and chose a Drivers course. The 'instructor' said that most cameras weren't even calibrated and he doubted if I was speeding. His words were "It brings in the revenue". So I suggest YOU do the research before pretending to be all high and mighty with this sham!
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
I believe that you, lollygaggle, are involved in this 'get rich quick' industry in some way or another. You seem to know an awful lot about speed camera's etc.
I also bet that YOU hardly ever stick to the speed limits either!
digitalbroadcaster 1 month ago
@lollygaggle reading further into your comments I dont actually think you read what i said. with your little rant about police chases and safety... has no bearng on anything. fact of the matter is.. if there was a truvelo or a gatso or any other form of speed camera there clearly visible it would reduce motorists speed. as oppose to a undercover van which infact could cause somebody who is speeding to brake heavily when they realise and loose control. fact of the matter is its not a deterant.
youlooklikeawasteman 2 months ago
@youlooklikeawasteman Actually, at the time the above clip was posted, speed enforcement was running at a considerable national loss. Revenue was never a consideration.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle your been rather General. From what I've read in a lot of Areas the grants were given as general Road Safety improvement grants as oppose to grants specifically for speed camera's. Council's or whatever bodies deal with it will have expenditure in other area's of road safety improvement... so yes.. whilst They maybe dont pay as much back to the treasury as was invested in said "Road safety improvement, which is more than a few gatso's Fact remains They still generate revenue..
youlooklikeawasteman 2 months ago
@youlooklikeawasteman You haven't grasped the point about the fines. Running costs were returned from Feb 2007 when the netting-off hypothecation changes kicked in & these outweighed what was being generated, so although as you say 'revenue' was generated, it was costing more to run than came in. Partnerships had no input with road improvements, different body altogether.
Such mobile operations as above are not meant to deter, they are designed to detect.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck off and take your bikes
vernethehamster 9 months ago
in north wales there is a 10% le-way on it so as i was going under what is 10% added to 60? its 66 soo as iwas going under the speed i will be okayy :P
MrJoshKearnz 9 months ago
i was going 65mph in a 60 today and i went past a speed van but it was on the other side of the road can i still get me the back of it was facing oncoming traffic and iwas going away from it ?
MrJoshKearnz 10 months ago
@MrJoshKearnz Yes, it works in both direxctions.
lollygaggle 9 months ago
@lollygaggle Just been told that i should be okay only one camera was on AND there was another car coming the other way by law they have to focus on the car that is on the side of the street they are monitoring
MrJoshKearnz 9 months ago
@MrJoshKearnz You have been misinformed, what you have been told is complete nonsense. The same LTI/video camera combination enforces in bnoth directions, there isn't two systems running - just one. There is no law regarding sides of the street - one speedscope, both directions & the officer can choose whichever vehicle he likes.
That said, 65mph in a 60 zone is well inside ACPO Guidelines, it is very unlikely you will receive a NIP.
lollygaggle 9 months ago
If that dozy copper put his speed gun away and started trying to catch proper criminals we'd be able to sleep safely in our beds.
duckgeezer 10 months ago
@duckgeezer You are misinformed. Such enforcement is done by civilians just so regular police can get on with other dutiers.
lollygaggle 10 months ago
hey, I eaten at that roadside greasy spoon
cirian75 1 year ago
Im not biker but its normally motorists knocking bikers off not checking there mirrors when should of, biker arnt all at fault an there not scum speed camera's are scum an whoever agree's with them burn in hell.
lowdailys 1 year ago
I would have stopped and watched him. made him feel uneasy about what he is doing the josb worth.
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
Cameras can't catch me with no licence or insurance!!!! Useless UK police..
gymcredible 1 year ago
Comment removed
4807302 1 year ago
Comment removed
4807302 1 year ago
I thought any major colour change the DVLA has to be notified. Anyway Snake Pass another one on my to do list :-D Thanks for posting.
Brushwarrior 1 year ago
@Brushwarrior How do you know what is on record at DVLA?
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle If you read the log book it asks that any changes, colour etc. the DVLA has to be notified otherwise you maybe fined. hmmmm. changing van colour from white to green etc or even blue. just a comment.
Brushwarrior 1 year ago
@Brushwarrior The question centres how anyone knows what colour is recorded on the log book of the above van? You have avoided this.
Just a comment.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
why is that road 30 ridiculas must be short of cash again
SMITHWAYNE100 1 year ago
@SMITHWAYNE100 30 what?
lollygaggle 1 year ago
What's the problem with camera vans changing their looks to catch people off guard? If people drove responsibly and didn't speed they wouldn't have to worry.
ModgeDonkey 1 year ago
It's there to catch fucking idiots speeding on this dangerous road. The clown who has filmed this is a prime example of an accident waiting to happen - just hope he slams into a tree rather another road user. In fact I hope he's dead already.
Beenanddoneit 1 year ago
@Beenanddoneit
Speeding isn't an issue. In the entire history of human kind, not a soul has died of speed. Bad driving is an issue, and it's getting worse since the government decided in the 80s that anyone who could point a car in approximately the right direction could have a licence. Some of the worst drivers never break the speed limit, but do stupid things like the twat in the video who crossed the double lines on a blind bend. Those sort of drivers are the ones we need to punish.
guili191 1 year ago
@guili191 Sir I bow to your superior knowledge. You are indeed profound.
Beenanddoneit 1 year ago
@guili191 You are misinformed - the impact velocity at the moment of a collision is the determining factor of the level of trauma &/or degree of damage. This is easily demonstrated; find a nice motorway overpass & drive into it at 1mph. Write down the effect on you & your vehicle. Now reverse off & do the same at 70mph. Again, jot down your findings then report back here & we can discuss the differences.
The issue is speed + bad driving combined.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle
Sorry. Absolute nonsense. I said that no-one has ever died of speed, and I invite you to cite me a single case where someone has. Now, to collide at speed is a completely different matter. If you're suggesting that we should never exceed a speed at which a fatality may occur when two vehicles collide, that I think we might as well all stay at home.
guili191 1 year ago
@guili191 You confuse the cause of the collision with the cause of death. Examples? Try every stationary pedestrian hit by a vehicle over the posted urban 30mph threshold - they died due to the impact velocity. Their death certificate does not show the cause of death as 'bad driving'.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle In your example the pedestrian died because he was hit by a vehicle. The driver, presumably survived so he didn't die of speed, and surely you're not suggesting that this is an example of 'good driving'? Of course there are circumstances where to drive at excessive speed is bad driving. But the pedestrian could, if he/she was careless, as easily have been killed by a bus travelling at 10mph. Your example doesn't defeat the logic of my argument that no-one dies of speed.
guili191 1 year ago
@Beenanddoneit
Sorry to disappoint you but this clown is still alive and kicking and still riding like an 'accident waiting to happen' LOL
DerbyBiker 1 year ago 8
@DerbyBiker Thanks for that - I've been worrying all week.
Beenanddoneit 1 year ago
@DerbyBiker so you are still riding to break the law and put lives at risk?
kwvaussie 1 year ago
@DerbyBiker well then you are a clown, how many have tried to emulate you and failed????
bobkats 1 year ago
@bobkats I do hope many riders emulate me and also take their IAM as well as their RoSPA Advanced Tests to make them safer on the road. :-)
DerbyBiker 1 year ago
@DerbyBiker it is not a matter of if but when on a bike, you add the fact you do not know what other motorists are doing and your stupidity in the way you ride, race bikes real pro's race on a track, they do not put people's lives at risk, your such a huge hotshot and a great rider, bet your not brave enough to tell the world who you really are!!!! See your not so big are you idiot
bobkats 1 year ago
@bobkats Why do people have to resort name calling? It’s so childish. You’re boring me now!
DerbyBiker 1 year ago
@DerbyBiker Glad i am boring you tin hero,,,,,,,
bobkats 1 year ago
Why do you not show us how great you really are, like winning the a superbike GP or a 12 hour bike moto or a big race, no that's right your a legend who would rather say look at me look at me I'm special, instead of really putting it to the test.
bobkats 1 year ago
@DerbyBiker Oh yes what are you doing today? Well I'm going out on my bike and cause as much drama on the roads as i can, because i do not care about anyone but me, see look at me I am so special on my bike. I am a motorcycle hero. I just wish my lunchbox was bigger so you could all see me.
bobkats 1 year ago
@bobkats Blimey, my very own stalker! LOL
DerbyBiker 1 year ago
@DerbyBiker Stalkers can usually be avoided by breaking your pattern. Simply do not turn up at the same location time after time & ignore their literary submissions.
Bikers (sigh), not the brightest section of the society.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@DerbyBiker PMSL Probably why he wants to know who you are. Don't tell him or you'll wake up with a sore arse. Ain't even a fast ride. LMAO
fxdx1450 1 year ago
@DerbyBiker stalker!!!!! you put yourself out there, buddy Australia is a long way from you, and how lucky are we that your not here, you would not survive 5 mins in this country..... When do you compete against the big boys on a race track we want to see how good you really are.....
bobkats 1 year ago
@Beenanddoneit You hope he's dead? I hope YOU'RE dead you oxygen thief.
SierraKilo9 1 year ago
@SierraKilo9 Well, like the clown on the bike said, sorry to disappoint you but I'm still alive. The reason I hoped he was dead was so that this cretin never has the opportunity of wiping out mum, dad and two kids driving normally on our roads. However, thank you for your good wishes.
Beenanddoneit 1 year ago
@Beenanddoneit Whether Derbybiker is riding like an idiot or not i must be missing the point. when i see a high vis police car/van/bike or other with all the stripes and blue lights etc etc, i check my speed. thus, job done. I am now driving within the law if i wasnt already. meaning the road is a safer place. However. If the police continue to play hide and seek using unmarked cars, (which by the way, stick out like sore thumb) and builders vans and so on, then that will not save lives.
WEU239L 1 year ago
@WEU239L Oh hang on, i get it. Its about making money for the government isnt it lol. If road safety was on the top of the list then they would just put speed bumps in the worst areas and high vis cars so people notice them. It might be worth mentioning at this point too that speeding only accounts for 6% of all RTA's. (road traffic accidents). so why dont the government invest some of this money into the other 94% and reduce the deaths on our roads. Im not saying speeding is big or clever but..
WEU239L 1 year ago
@WEU239L speeding isnt the sole cause of accidents. Most of the time i drive within the law but i still have my laser jammer switched on just incase there are any battered old renult masters parked on double yellows with a dodgy looking camera peeking out or perhaps a discovery with a horse box on the back. Yes folks the police will stoop to any level to grab yer cash so watch out.
WEU239L 1 year ago
@WEU239L no mate speed bumps have been proven to slow emergency vehicles so their use is restricted in certain areas speed cameras are the best option in such locations.
taIlboyandy23 1 year ago
@WEU239L The question is, why don't you drive within the law 'all the time'?
What will save lives is for people to stick to the limits imposed on the roads, or reduce it if the conditions require it (rain, snow etc).
Speed camera (hidden or not) are a tax on idiots.
If you speed, and get caught, who's to blame?
I like the idea of hidden cameras. If they tax the people who've decided some rules should be broken, tough for them.
Cliffjumper24 1 year ago
@Beenanddoneit FUCK OFF! Mobile speed camera's are wank
Cpowell91 1 year ago
@Cpowell91
Thank you. I appreciate your profound statement and I can see you are an educated man. However, in the context of your statement there should be no appostrophe in cameras.
Beenanddoneit 1 year ago
@Beenanddoneit In your comment 1 year ago on the Audi Q7, you stated and I quote 'It's 'bad ass' all right as bad as you can get on the roads today. Ugly as sin!'
However, in the context of your statement, it should be 'alright' and not 'all right'.
Be very careful of playing the 'Spelling Police' card, when you are equally at fault.
eviIbreebIes 1 year ago
Surely with speed camera vans and radar guns they are looking for your number plate, gues we are alright then! but thanks for posting the video, i was there today and was a little disappointed with the roads, but i do live next to Hartside
1Frankiefish 1 year ago
@1Frankiefish Guess you're alright? In what way?
lollygaggle 1 year ago
I was driving on the snake at about 11 pm last night and just after you get past doctors gate and approach the summit (travelling from glossop towards sheffield.) there was a white transit van parked on the verge with its back doors open, very suspicious. I think a driver coming the other way warned me by flashing his head lights, but I cant be sure as it may of just looked like that. I wasnt speeding anyway as I never do these days, but just be warned, any vehicle at the side could be a trap
cityflyguy 1 year ago
burn the vans too !
daewooparts 1 year ago
@daewooparts Burning speeding vans is a bit strong, isn't it enough that those who ignore the posted thresholds are fined & get points?
lollygaggle 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
nice they stick to goverment guide lines as of april 2010 this is still registered as green reg fn02nwz
hornyboris 1 year ago
sort your f-kin sound out
your bike sounds like a modem streaming data through a phone line
lgarvey 1 year ago
Typical ride on a bike eh? Fun vid. I don't think the camera vans can do anything to a bike anyway with plates on the back and not front.
6shnuggle6 1 year ago
@6shnuggle6 You are grossly misinformed. Motorcycles present no problem whatsoever for mobile enforcement.
Those who approach with the rider facing the laser are pinged as any other vehicle. Then, depending on what equipment is being used, the front facing camera will be used in conjunction with the Commander's quad system & record the rear of the bike as it passes.
Failing that, the officer will simply look out of the window & write the registration down.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle You seem to be forgetting the fact that you can stop short, take your number plate off the back, stuff it down your leathers, pull a u turn and ride off and there's nothing the pigs in the van can do about it. BTW it also means nothing if one police officer writes down your registration, you need the statement of two police officers to provide enough evidence for a conviction in court.
char19822 1 year ago
@char19822 Not so, a single police staff member's statement is all that is required to secure a conviction. The LTI Speedscope is the 'other' witness.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle You seem to be missing the point, the video evidence is not what you would be contesting in court, it is the officer's identification of the number plate, hence what the video evidence actually shows. Two police officer's statements are required to verify any detail in a case, such as number plates, who was driving etc. I have won court cases against the police on exactly this technicality and had many other charges abandoned, god bless the policy of one PC and one PCSO per car.
char19822 1 year ago
@char19822 You simply don't understand the premise of Safety Camera Partnerships, you are bogged down in Vascar & regular officers. SCP's operate single civilians who, in conjunction with an LTI 20.20 & either video or DVD & the fact they have recorded the number visually is all they need. What 'technicality' do you refer to exactly? Name the legislation as you have experience of it??
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle It's true I have never had to contest a case involving SCP, the only similar case one involving road side video purporting to show an offence, a PC plus a possibly invented off duty police witness. However, as far as I am aware all SCP evidence gives the police the power to do is make a section 172 request, which can be filled in in indefinite language and retracted in court (as people have done). I don't have access to a legal library atm, but the law generally obeys logical rules.
char19822 1 year ago
@char19822 I am unsure what advantage being unclear would be when responding to the s.172? Unless the address exists & the named driver responds, a summons will be forthcoming for failure to supply.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle No, fill it in giving a clear and correct name and address and then refute the allegations in indefinite language i.e. "I do not think I did..." "...I politely request disclosure of any evidence to the contrary..." with the implication that the named person is only named to avoid prosecution for failing to fill the form in. Indefinite to avoid problems if conclusive evidence is presented. Anything else and you've potentially already screwed yourself before court.
char19822 1 year ago
@char19822 Evidence will not be forthcoming until there is a guilty plea. The moment you imply the named person was not the driver = summons for FTS.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle No you are absolutely incorrect about the evidence, you have a right to view it before the trial in the interests of "resolving the matter". You never bring the identification of the driver/vehicle into it until court for this reason, you lay the groundwork for this with the language in the section 172 form. Don't tell me you're one of the arseholes who sits in the speed camera vans, deluding yourself into thinking the system is infallible and you're making the roads safer?
char19822 1 year ago
@char19822 You misunderstand & appear highly confused about s,172 .- if you aren't the driver at the time of offence, then you will not have access to evidence due to data protection as the incident relates to someone else. Identifying the driver is crucial & if you can, then why wouldn't you? Wasting the court's time will simply increase the fine.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
There is no legal requirement to display camera signs anywhere they are used, forces just tend to as a deterrent factor and a a way to show that they're not just concerned about raising revenue.
iansmif3000 1 year ago
@iansmif3000;
Police forces aren't interested in raising revenue at all. They don't benefit in any way - it all goes to the government.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lollygaggle it all gos to the force that collects it you fool my mate is a civil servent for the pigs he says all money gos back into the system
hornyboris 1 year ago
@lollygaggle
Absolutely wrong. Only 12% goes to the Treasury, the rest goes to the speed camera partnership. It's a business, and very profitable.
guili191 1 year ago
@guili191 You'll have no problem citing sources for this claim then - this is the greatest source of reference known to mankind after all.
Since the hypothecation/netting-off changes (Feb 2007), SCP's are not allowed to make a profit from speeding fines.It all goes to the government & only running costs are returned in the form of an annual road safety grant.
More homework needed.
1/10
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle My source is the Treasury but, since it is populated by a cadre of Machiavellian conspirators, I shouldn't be in the least surprised if it's a lie.
guili191 1 year ago
@guili191 Netting-off by councils was stopped by the previous government 3.5 years ago - there are many links on the internet that detail this The Treasury can't 'lie' about it - it is common knowledge that it no longer happens. You simply haven't caught up yet.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle OK, you win on that one, but speed still doesn't kill.
guili191 1 year ago
@guili191 It isn't about winning, it is about accurate information.
Speed doesn't kill? if you'd attended any RTC's in an official capacity, you'd appreciate the difference between hitting a pedestrian at 20mph & 35mph? Impact velocity is the single biggest contributory factor to the level of physical trauma in a collision.
Hit something/someone at a velocity sufficient to generate fatal injuries = you/they die. That's at the heart of the 'It's 30 for a reason' campaign.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
@lollygaggle
I hate to be obvious, but it seems to me that it would be preferable not to hit a pedestrian at any speed. And it might be as well to admit that, sometimes, the pedestrian is at fault. But that would be a bit non PC in these times when the driver is considered to be responsible for everything irrespective of the circumstances.
guili191 1 year ago
@guili191 The determination of 'fault' is not under discussion - yes, better not to have any road traffic collision, but it happens every day. This is what 'Speeding Kills' means, not 'Speeding Causes Accidents' - more, when a collision takes place, the greater the impact velocity, the chances of someone dying go up. You've rightly identified that people walk out in front of cars, that will never be stopped, but 'It's 30 for a reason' & the reason is as I have just established.
lollygaggle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
everyone google smidsy card its a group of lawyers who are bikers they will take these ass holes to court i found them at the carole nash NEC bike show this year if you have newer footage it would make life easier google them for the number or message me they also take gov to court for drops due to shite road surface and debri on roads eg diesel
message me if you want more info or their number
ps you need to ring the police if you slide so you can claim
jackojeff 1 year ago
hi mate, can you say what you could take them to court for exactly? what they are doing is perfectly legal in the UK there is no legislation that says they cannot work covertly
gIoucesterharry 1 year ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gIoucesterharry no they are not unless they have a sign warning drivers that there will be a speed a speed camera mobile or static this is why you see camera signs when there isn't one it is because of mobile cameras if no sign is shown then it is classed as entrapment and this is illegal
jackojeff 1 year ago
the reason I asked is because I have been involved in a speeding case where the defence was no signs being put out. the magistrate was very clear there is absolutely no legislation that says there has to any signage at all. you say it is illegal, what law or legislation does it contravene? from the research i have done, i can find nothing
gIoucesterharry 1 year ago 12
i just looked up the entrapment thing and it doesn't fit the definition and a few legal sites say it isn't.
gIoucesterharry 1 year ago 2
with the entrapment thing, how are they making you break the law?
gIoucesterharry 1 year ago 4
looking at the video above there is a very clear warning sign about 75yards before the speed van.
gIoucesterharry 1 year ago 6
@gIoucesterharry
I think the point is that the police are doing nothing to try to persuade drivers to slow down, but are merely punishing them after the event. How does this square with their contention that they want to prevent drivers from exceeding the speed limit? The true fact is that drivers are an easy catch, fines are useful for local police forces, and it makes their performance figures look good.
guili191 1 year ago
they may as well thow a tank net over the van as well. thats no way to get you to slow down if you cant even see it. greed camera.
monkey01302 2 years ago
@monkey01302 Safety Camera Partnerships do not make a single penny of profit from speed enforcement operations.
Equally, the government has no say in the positioning of cameras or how they are implemented - the suggestion that 'greed' is in any way involved is simply misplaced.
Why should there even be any intention of getting anyone to slow down? Every motorist knows the system of signage in place, you choose to ignore it, you risk facing the consequences.
lollygaggle 2 years ago
so if they dont make any money why isnt the van bright yellow and a picture of a camera on it so you slow down in a high risk area rather than a green van parked next to trees. and as for your comment why should there be any intention of getting anyone to slow down? the whole point of having speed cameras is to put off speeders in accident hot spots. not to hand out fines. you probably think all cameras should be painted in camouflage.
monkey01302 2 years ago
I acknowledge your confusion, There is no 'if they don't make any money', for iIn 2007 it all changed, which now means that the government now get every penny of the fines & only return exact running costs to partnerships.
There are then two types of enforcement; the first being police based & they can park where they like, with no warning signs whatsoever & in covert vehicles. Next, although they could do the same, partnerships tend to use marked vehicles at hotspots using signage.
lollygaggle 2 years ago
just looked at old comments and you have a massive hard on for commenting on this vid. im not not wasting any more of my life on it.
monkey01302 2 years ago
@monkey01302 Hi thanks for replying.
It is a great shame that you hadn't done any research before initially commenting.
You are right, it is probably best you quietly slink away before it gets any worse for you
lollygaggle 2 years ago
You called the guy at 4:06 an idiot, but he did nothing wrong. He is allowed to overtake slow moving traffic even where there is a full white line in the centre of the road.
Go read your highway code if you don't bevieve me.
blackturbans 2 years ago
@blackturbans It wasn't the white line that was being highlighted - it was the overtaking on a blind bend, placing himself on the wrong side of the road with no clue what was coming the other way & with cyclists on his nearside.
You can only overtake if it is safe to do so & there is enough space to do so - it wasn't on both counts.
Go read your highway code, section 166 if you don't believe me.
lollygaggle 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
blackturbans 2 years ago
Nice to see our council tax going to good use,fucking scum pigs!
spock31132 2 years ago
@spock31132 Council tax? What is the connection?
lollygaggle 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pardon me but were on earth do you get that statistic from!?
leroybrown1984 2 years ago
Who is that question directed at? Certainly not me as you didn't hit the 'Reply' button.
If it is - static cameras (Gatso's, RedSpeed etc), account for @ 75% of all national speeding prosecutions. These are operated by Safety Camera Partnerships (administered by police civilian staff), regular police having no operational input. Then you have mobile enforcement, again done by civilians which makes up the remaining 23%.
Freedom of Information Act reveals such data.
You believe other?
lollygaggle 2 years ago