I agree with camera's in certain places like outside schools but the authorities lost the respect of the hardworking motoring tax payer when they started using them as cash generators. Now I'm glad to see these pictures..now we just need to hang the bastards that introduced them in the first place.
@3603089 - Ive been against these monstrous things for the past 5 years, they cost the taxpayer so much its ridiculous - something like £75,000 to set one up and £50,000 a year to run the thing - obviously back then everyone was marvelling Labours Soviet police state - until they saw the fucking bill - now who was right? We’re 1 trillion in debt thanks to the money they wasted on surveillance & middle eastern crusades for oil.
@GoVir4l Hi, a Gatso will set you back @ £40 - 45k depending upon location.
Actually, revenue v running costs have been pretty much balanced, so the tax payer has only been spending @ £10 - 20m per annum & most of that in criminal damage replacement costs.
@lollygaggle I don't need to supply "an evidence" as you put it, it's just common sense that traffic calming measures should be in place where children gather like schools and playgrounds....children often don't look when crossing a road (fact) so traffic should be forced to slow down in these area's.
@3603089 Hi, there is no KSI/collision data that backs up your view about schools needing speed enforcement. What you have not considered is that the local authority will have a human school crossing patrol at arrival/collection time, this will be demanded by parents & is done as a matter of course.
Also, the amount of parked vehicles & people at peak times, naturally slows the traffic.
You cannot (reasonably...) compare a machine with a person
A machine says 'dangerous' if you pass it over the limit, in the dead of night with nobody around, yet that same machine says that an errant mother who kills a child outside a school wa driving 'just fine' because she was only doing 27 MPH!
Machines are stupid - tear them down and use the money for real policing with people!
@enginetorque Can you explain the fixation regarding accidents outside schools? Is a child killed outside a school worse than one killed in a housing estate?
@lollygaggle - If you're questioning the "fixation about schools" in the manner I think you are then we might aswel fit every car on the road with a speed lock when it enters a particular area - but we all know that would only result in a mass exodus of this nation - leaving you lollygaggle all alone rocking back and forth in a dark room uttering quietly to yourself over and over "they're all speeding.... they're all speeding" - have you ever considered getting help?
@enginetorque too true, if you pass a camera at 35 mph at 3 am when no ones around you get convicted and are a criminal
if you kill someone and put them in the boot of your car get drunk and drive your car with no t+t and no insurance passed the same camera at 29 mph your not a criminal... they are a joke...nothing but cash machines for the police and the authorities
Speeding cameras are a lazy and feckless 'one size fits all' attempt to subjegate and control our driving habits and as drivers come in a variety of flavours and sizes, one size fits all is entirely appropriate. A driver concentrating on the road at 60 mph is a lot safer than a car full of kids on the school run with a fraught mother weaving around at 35 mph as she shouts into the mirror at little johnny - etc etc.
if a speed camera flashes, it failed to slow someone down. with millions of people being caught by speed cameras i would say thats good proof they don't work.
@RustyNex Such devices are designed to trigger if you choose to ignore the posted threshold. It is the resulting fine, points or speed awareness course that then encourages you to obey mandatory traffic signage.
@lollygaggle doesn't mean it works. things that work are speed bumps or bends in the road, there are many ways to reduce speed that actually force people to slow down, but these are optional. they are the only system to automatically issue fines. also i know people who have been caught accidentally because signs were obscured or they simply missed the speed change sign. there are some people who break the law and some who make mistakes, should they be lumped into the same group?
@RustyNex Fines are not automatically issued, each frame has to be viewed by a member of a processing unit, in fact the above kit uses conventional 35mm camera film that has to be processed just like taking it to Boots.
If someone chooses to be oblivious of traffic signage then that is their choice.
Speed enforcement is just one aspect of traffic management, physical traffic calming measures is another subject entirely & much more expensive to implement.
@lollygaggle they are automatically issued in that people don't get a chance to explain themselves, thats charged without trial effectively.
there is a difference between being oblivious to traffic signage and a minor mistake. can you honestly say you have never made a mistake whilst driving? never missed a turn, or accidentally drifted over the speed limit? there is a BIG difference between a mistake and a genuine disregard for safety on public roads.
@RustyNex You don't understand, a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution), is issued & everyone has the option to decline to pay the fine/take the course & have their day in court - there is never an automatic fine & points. Everyone without exception has the opportunity to explain themselves.
How do you suggest any road safety initiative is funded without money? Given the current financial climate, everything is about cost, a camera processing unit can easily cost £200,000 a month.
@lollygaggle that is not true, i have had 9 points and i was never given any options and believe me i read everything and triple checked because i would have definitely opted for the course instead.
i am pretty sure that putting a rubber speed bump down outside a school wouldn't cost £200,000
anyway, it seems like curing the symptom not the cause, why do people speed? maybe stress? lack of sleep and food? i think that should be looked into more than just trying to force people.
@lollygaggle i guarantee absolutely that i was not given any options. i was first sent an NIP asking if i was the driver and i sent back saying yes, and they said here is where you send the fine and your license. i checked everything 100 times because i knew other people sometimes got a choice.
what can you do about it? there are loads of people that i feel shouldn't be allowed to drive, if someone is tired maybe they don't speed and don't get caught but they are still on the road.
@lollygaggle i promise you i double checked and had other people check too, it was 8 years ago, maybe its changed? but i would have taken the course, if the courses are so effective then shouldn't it be really obvious that people can choose them?
no there is no perfect system to filter good and bad drivers but it can be evened out with better education during driving tests, and more police to spot bad drivers, i feel that is always better than just a camera no matter how cheap it might be.
@RustyNex No, it was only an alleged offence, the back of the S172 request where you completed the driver's details had a box that you should have ticked - you didn't tick it.
When you were sent the second set of documents, you should then have written back saying you wanted a court hearing. What would have been your defence?
@lollygaggle you posted on another comment that sometimes driving course is not offered, could that not be the situation?
i had nine points for speeding all very close together, i was 17 and made plenty of mistakes, but i never crashed due to excessive speed. i would do about 1000 miles a week for work, you get tired and want to get home its easy to make mistakes. i am not saying its an excuse and i didn't complain that i got points, i just think there are better ways of handling these problems
@lollygaggle thats fine, i knew i had checked the paper work properly. still it didn't stop me repeat offending like a course may have done, so i think that is a failure in the system. and again i think the speed awareness should be part of the test, why wait until people do things wrong?
@RustyNex Are you suggesting that your driving instructor, the Highway Code & the test didn't very clearly highlight that all roads carry a maximum speed limit?
@lollygaggle sure they did but its the psychological effect that should be emphasized,such as visiting wreckage, showing pictures of crashes etc, telling me i shouldn't go above 30 on this road obviously didn't work, showing me what the person i could have hit would look like afterwards might also if i had had the opportunity to mess about on an airfield or something, to show how easy it is to loose control it might have helped. you don't understand how much damage a car does until after a crash
@lollygaggle totally different subject. all my points dropped off the 5 year limit a long time ago, i am a good driver, i was young and stupid back then and the system failed to prevent that, i learned to correct my mistakes, but the points and police had no effect. that is the problem, that is why cameras don't work.
@lollygaggle i disagree, everyone can be educated, but for example society rejects people who have done time, they won't get jobs etc but again a huge subject for another time.
there was no real turning point, i didn't have any huge crash or anything like that, i just grew up. i love cars, i know what they can do, i know how easy it would be to die even at 30mph, but after maybe 23 years i cared more about not dying and not killing other people, before then i didn't care.
@RustyNex I disagree, education is just knowledge, it is the implementation of that into action that people lack the ability to do, hence people die from smoking related diseases despite a vast raft of information being available about how dangerous it is.
From my experience, speed enforcement works for some but not for others, there is no perfect solution that fits all.
@lollygaggle everyone can learn. i think it is about how the information is passed, there are good ways to educate people, that work, and there are bad ways. smoking is not really a good example because the chemical itself effects judgment, but i get what you mean.
i think its the way things are done, if people understand why they should not speed, its better than just saying no you shouldn't do it. its proven that banning things makes people want to do them more.
@enginetorque The primary object of speed enforcement is to encourage motorists not to exceed the posted thresolds & you have clearly acknowledged that in your response.
It is accepted that there is a percentage of drivers who drive badly & that whilst human beings control motor vehicles, collisions will take place, so when a crash occurs, which they will, physical trauma is minimised.
@lea1mercian Where is the evidence that speed enforcement is needed at or near schools? Local authorities have that all boxed off with human crossing patrols, not to mention that traffic runs very slowly past schools at arrival & kicking out time due to the masses of traffic parked in the road.
Evidence to support your claim with accident related stats please?
Excellent Well done I say, very nice song, I agree with enginetorque It would be very sad to see these actions becoming a trend, I also could not condone criminal behaviour
Speed cameras are DANGEROUS - they invoke panic braking and unsafe driving - folks are more interested in not getting a ticket than causing a pile up (understandably)!
Speed doesn't kill - but a sudden stop most definitely does - speed cameras have the tail wagging the dog!
@enginetorque You misunderstand, speed enforcement costs more than it generates, the issue of 'revenue' completely missed by those who have no idea of the running costs involved. A camera processing unit can easily cost between £200 - 300k a month to operate.
The above gentleman were making a film involving riding in excess of 160mph on public roads - when their premises was searched following their arrest, animal cruelty videos were also found.
Ok, then how do YOU suggest we tackle motorists that drive through 30 mph speed limits at 60?......or idiots in Audi's, BMW's and other high-powered cars that think motorways are their own personal playground and test track?
@Darkside1974 Is this directed at me? Please use 'Reply' in future.
You still do not understand. 99% of all speeding detections are generated by civilians in vans. They use Ultralytes (models 100 or 1000) which is connected to the Concept DVD recording system. They are not regular officers, but do produce evidence that can be reviewed, unlike the example you quoted about arguing with a police officer which can go nowhere as it is their word against your's.
@Darkside1974 You haven't thought this through. A static camera has secondary check marks & two photos taken a known time apart. This will allow you to work out your speed, but if stopped by a police officer with an LTI, you have nothing - & you want to argue with a copper?
we've done several of these now, and what a sense of satisfaction it gives too. i also ride a yamaha R1, WITHOUT numberplate. big brother, kiss my SORRY ass.
we've done several of these now, and what a sense of satisfaction it gives too. i also ride a yamaha R1, WITHOUT numberplate. big brother, kiss my SORRY ass.
@Darkside1974 Couldn't agree more, now static camera numbers have diminished, mobile enforcement has taken over. No warning signs, no big yellow box, just vehicles that can get you way before you spot them - the LTI UL1000 has a range of 999m.
The motivator here in Australia is not revenue, it's pressure from insurance companies on the state governments. Joe Bloggs has a crash, sues main roads, their insurer pays out to Joe Bloggs, the insurer increases premiums for the governments, government reacts by trying to lower its risk profile that the insurance company charges them by, so they introduce "road safety" speed cameras.
It works the same way in OH&S, that's why most companies are safety nuts. Not because they care about you.
Hi- comments on your video - from ‘lollygaggle’ - Interestingly the same self-opinionated individual appears in comments in videos I’ve posted - such as "Speed Camers & £100K police lie"
This ‘individual’ - to me appears to be more of an organised in-house ‘pig’ monitoring unit - trying to sidetrack public opinion from Police corruption matters
I wonder - how many female prisoners lollygaggle has raped - or perhaps he specialises in selling dead childrens details to the press ?
@lollygaggle - not a 'he' - thank you - one more part of the jigsaw - and still you have not provided the official references on highway code matters requested by 'the waving trucker' - would you care to provide a rank /position to establish your credentials?
I mean "vigilant" towards other drivers and as a pose to the stability of my car when going at speeds over 30/40mph. And I will admit, I seen the camera's but I thought they were more deterants than anything and also, when coming home from a gig that took 3 hours to get to, spent 4 hours doing an exhausting show for, packing your equipment away and having another 3 hours potentially to get back, of course I'm going to want to put my foot down a little, especially when roads are clear and its 3am
@lollygaggle: I duno what theyre called but they arent box/square shaped like gatso's. Theyre smaller and are like a long cylinder shape. Average speed checkers i think. Theyre temporary while theres road works on the motorway.
@ashleelmb You are somewhat deluded, destroying static cameras simply generates huge profits for both the manufacturer & UK suppler & the tax payer foots the bill! What is now happening, is that mobile enforcement is being dramatically increased, so no warning signs, you can be detected at up to 1000m & you'll never know where they will be parked.
Far better, the big yellow box on a pole that you can see from a distance.
@lollygaggle: I think deluded is the wrong word...I'm simply angry about a few recent NIP's that have been actioned against me over some trivial speeds at 3am in the morning when the motorways were clear and I am just taking a little satisafaction from seeing these things on fire. So if you dont mind, let me just have my couple of minutes worth of satisfaction because quite frankly, I could just as easily go out and strangle the people who make these bastard things.
@ashleelmb How can you possibly be detected by Gatso's on a motorway? Were they hidden?
The very worst RTC's I have attended were on early morning roads that people believed were 'clear'. One man died after a deer just appeared in front of him, the thing came in through the windscreen at 85mph & he died instantly.
Equally, I have attended inquests where people have wanted to strangle speeding motorists who had become too complacent.
@lollygaggle: Look pal, whether youre doing 50 on a motorway, 70 or 85...youre going to die from a deer standing in the road so shall we all just scrap our cars just incase? And I can only speak for me here. I remain vigilant when I drive whether thats going under or over the speed limit. Being "complacent" doesnt come over me. I just want to get from A to B without any bother and these speed cameras stress me out moreso than any inconsiderate motorist ever has. And the camera's werent Gatsos.
Having attended ta great many RTC's, the single factor that determines the depth of physical trauma is impact velocity - the faster you hit something, the more inertia that has to be dissipated. Of all fatalities, the majority have involved exceeding the posted threshold.
I am lost by your comments regarding the destruction of Gatso's, you state '.seeing these things on fire', when in fact it wasn't one that detected you. Was it SPECS/average speed?
@daviedee123 The onus isn't on the police to prove who was driving, it is the registered keeper who must identify who was behind the wheel at the time.
At the time of the alleged offence, you were the registered keeper & responsible under s172 to supply the name of the driver at the time the detection took place. Re-registering the vehicle after the offence, would achieve nothing.
@daviedee123 Extremely difficult to accept, given the sale of a vehicle involves 2 parts of the 'log book' being completed, plus DVLA would have no record of the made up name.
If you hadn't sold the car, then it would still appear insured to you on insurance database. Saying you've sold the car is one thing, but if you hadn't, then you still have to tax & insure it. There will now be a flag next to the VRM & this will be picked up by ANPR.
@lollygaggle this happened 2 year ago an never heard anything since sold the car in March this year know the new owner had problems trying to get a ne log book for it
speed cameras will kill more than save, people driver slower in towns etc were speed cameras are and use lower gears so use more petrol a car driving at 29mph is far less economic than one driving at 35mph, and when millions of cars are driving at the lower speed to avoid getting speeding fines thats an extra few hundred thousand barrels of oil burnt every day which means peak oil will happen quicker and without oil no fertilizers or pesticides can be made so millions in the third world starve..
@lollygaggle Prosecute the motorists who are speeding well over the limit speed cameras should only be there to catch motorist 10mph over the limit for that road and catch the real boy racers. Red light cameras should not activate till at least 2 seconds after the lights have changed to red this would avoid cars breaking sharply soon as lights change i have seen 2 accidents caused by this so the camera caused the accident not avoided it and would catch genuine red light jumper's...
@MrBorderghost Redlight cameras do not activate instantly on red, it is 1.5 seconds after.
So you suggest changing all 30mph zones to 40mph, for this is what would happen as soon as it became common knowledge that there is a 10mph allowance = nuts.
Please think things through before commenting in future.
@lollygaggle Im not saying change 30mph zones to 40mph, im saying if the speed limit in that zone is 30mph speed cameras should only catch motorists going 10mph over the limit so 40mph or above and yes prosecute genuine speeding motorists...
@MrBorderghost You aren't thinking - if motorists know they are safe to travel 39mph in a posted 30mph zone, then it becomes a 40mph zone, the posted signage becomes meaningless.
The 'It's 30 for a reason' campaign was very clear - a little girl explains that if she's hit by a car at 40mph there's an 80 per cent chance she'll die. If hit at 30mph there's an 80 per cent chance she'll live.
@lollygaggle The cars will be driving at a far more economical rate which in the long run will save the amount of fuel we use making them better for the enviroment and also hold off peak oil which as i have said before will lead to a lot more deaths and suffering even in todays news we are seeing the cost of energy rise because they cant keep up with demand for energy how many pensioners do you think are going to suffer this winter or even freeze to death efficency is the answer...
@lollygaggle So because it will never be implimented we should just accept it, thats the problem people just accept whatever the goverment throws at them.
@MrBorderghost So you believe that those families who live next to urban roads would condone a raising of the posted thresholds where their kids interact?
@lollygaggle I have not said raise the posted threshold, my point is still the same cars are using the last of the worlds oil at an alarming rate and so forcing them drive at 29mph they are not economical by letting them drive around 35mph the average family car can get another 5miles per gallon times that by millions of cars and you could save billions of barrels of oil a year and if you understand how oil feeds the worlds population would save millions of lives from starvation...
@MrBorderghost No, you have said the threshold should be raised to allow motorists to avoid prosecution. How is that not raising a posted 30mph to 39mph? The 30mph signs become redundant because everyone can simply drive a lot faster & not be concerned about being NIP'ed.
So many cars on the road give low MPG, Range Rovers, Cayennes, large BMW's etc all with just one person in - that's the issue, not the speed, the vehicle in use & how it is used.
@lollygaggle Why i understand what you are saying about cars could drive upto 39mph at least only the genuine drivers who take the p### with no consideration for others would be the ones who get prosecuted. As for cars that give low mpg that certainly is an issue the only good thing about the rise in the cost of fuel is it will hopefully get many people into smaller economical cars or out of there cars altogether, i have done my bit and no longer own a car and cycle or walk...
Speed camers have nothing to do with road safety. there all about making money, creating jobs and stimulating the economy
@lollygaggle 'It's 30 for a reason' campaign was very clear - a little girl explains that if she's hit by a car at 40mph there's an 80 per cent chance she'll die. If hit at 30mph there's an 80 per cent chance she'll live.
Yes but if she'd of learned to cross the road properly she wouldn't of been run over at all
Please think things throu before commenting in future
@GoGetDaGimp You completely misunderstand & are misinformed.
Speed enforcement has been costing more to run that it generates, in fact it has been running at a loss for nearly three years, it has never 'stimulated' the economy.
It is a lovely idea concerning pedestrian safety & education, but human beings will always do dafty things & walk out without looking.
@lollygaggle sorry but it is you that misunderstands & is misinformed
1.You need to learn the difference bewteen "The truth" and "The whole truth" , you can tell "The truth" but still mislead peolple.
2. You clearly are unable to see the big picture. which is why you read the "Are speed cameras simply cash cows" article and came to the conclusion you did. It states several times they dont know how much it costs to run the cameras, so how the hell can you say its Fact they'er not cash cows
The big problem with such a forum as this, is that individuals are unable to supply anything other than what is available. I supplied the link because it is fairly data rich, however not evidence, & certainly not the basis of my experience.
The UK is billions in the red & speed enforcement has only dealt with comparitively very small quantities of money after running costs paid.
What is the basis of your views, what are your sources?
3. your lack of big picture skills is very clear in your reply to me.
[[Speed enforcement has been costing more to run that it generates, in fact it has been running at a loss for nearly three years, it has never 'stimulated' the economy]]
3a. Are you saying, that because its been running at a loss for nearly three years. that this means it dosnt 'stimulated' the economy" ? do you know how many jobs have been created by speed enforcement? im guessing not.
3b. You said [[in fact it has been running at a loss for nearly three years]] So what about the past 7+ years then? Even if just 1 of them years they created an income from speed cameras then your statement that "it has never 'stimulated' the economy" would just be wrong, wouldnt it ?
4. plz dont send me links from web sites like fullfact again. They & you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "fact". Quotes from spokepersons are not FACTS
@stevedewsbury Static cameras are replaced by mobile ones - someting you cannot see from hundreds of metres away. Mobile cameras can ping you at 1000m & in 0.3sec, which do you really prefer?
Don't forget police need to identify your face as the driver to prosecute!!!! someone else can be driving your vehicle!!! Simples! As long as someone CAN claim liability for that offense even if u receive one by post!!! like a cousin or a fake brother's name at a different address! they sign and send back!! just make sure you have the means to cover your back side if they cops prove otherwise!!!! LOOPHOLE in everything as long as something exists it has a weakness!! THINK CAR HIRE COMPANIES!
@bigtingsz Complete nonsense, it the responsibility of the registered keeper under s172 RTA to supply the details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. The police don't have to supply anything until you've entered a plea. There will not even be a face photo if the vehicle iis moving away from the camera.
@lollygaggle THAT'S MY POINT EXACTLY!! Read down the page!! if u can be bothered!! By Law YOU the registered keeper Cannot be prosecuted! if police try it on the register keeper then you say that the nominated driver drove the car without keepers consent in the first place!! an no way police will be able to bring photos of a face when you get a speed ticked from the back!! unless you're involved in more serious offense.. like a shooting!! and they will track the car on all its journey!!
@bigtingsz If the vehicle was taken without consent & you can prove it, then the driver would be done for TDA. Which law are you under the impression says the registered keeper cannot be prosecuted under?
if the name & adrees of the driver are supplied by the registered keeper then their obligations have been met, however this will ONLY work if the nominated drive can be contacted.
@lollygaggle Exactly. registered keeper met obligations and the offender admits responsibility and REPLIES BACK to cops.. but if then that driver later cannot be contacted as he has left the country... or died.. or whatever reasons that could happen.. the police will then not be able to go and prosecute the registered keeper! it will be against that registered keepers rights BECAUSE he cooperated and gave the details of the offender who admitted to offense!!!! Thank God someone understands!!
@lollygaggle lets just say... the police never investigateD with the registered keeper or came back to them... and in this case FAKE or false offenders can notify Registered keeper once documents and liability is signed and sent back to police. In terms of registered keeper being pursued it would be difficult and costly and out of the cops way as they don't suspect the registered KEEPER hold more evidence than a number plate and they cant pursue at that stage! no CASE! LOOPHOLE!
@lollygaggle hire companies provide the driver/hirer name and address even if that driver resides and is NOW in IRAQ. police know they cant pursue him! same scenario with the relative that left the country!! same is required to provide a driver and address and if in this case they documents come back to cops signed from offender they cant pursue keeper. THEY MUST GET THEIR PAPERS BACK TO POLICE!! otherwise they will pursue keeper! someone else admitted liability! really simple!
@lollygaggle Just a valid Iraqi address!!! where there will be someone signing liability and returning the documents back to the UK. the documents must be sent back to police!!! and as soon as the documents send back to UK police. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE!! SOMEONE ELSE CLAIMED LIABILITY. Registered keeper has no more liability!!! I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY AND HOW you find that a registered keeper is obliged to supply MORE proof. keeper is innocent hence other offender sent back documents ;-) !
@lollygaggle the FAKE driver IS actually contacted in the beginning of the process!!! where the keeper actually nominates him as the driver at time of offense....... but after the Fake driver admits liability and send back documents to police.. there is then no need for the keeper to disclose anymore information!!! and now that the new driver claimed lability.. Police are after him!! and he actually doesn't exist except on that piece of paper that they got back! Hence keeper of the HOOK!
@bigtingsz No - the registered keeper is aloways contacted 'in the beginning'.
You haven't thought this through, someone in Iraq would have to respond - no response, then the registered keeper would be back in the frame. The person in Iraq would have to supply flight details to prove they were in the country at the time of the offence & insurance details to prove vehicle cover whilst in the UK.
Fake driver = no documentary evidence of ever having driven - plus don't forget face photos.
@lollygaggle OFFENDER RESPONDED TO UK COPS! what ever happens AFTER that CONFESSION is not the Keepers business!!! such as police asking 4 insurance docs or flight details!! are you kidding me? keeper has no more duties once offender admits liability to UK cops. that's up to the police and offender who admitted liability to chase each other to get the rest of the details sorted, weather he had insurance or valid license! KEEPER COOPERATED & IS NOT GUILTY! ofcourse face photos is different!
Respond to this video... when Keeper nominates Offender, and Offender responds back liability to UK. How on earth do you see cops asking keeper for more Proof of docs or flight details. keeper has Rights TOO! he supplied what the law requires! police cannot bend the law! they haven't got other picture evidence on this occasion(S) ! They just got a number plate! That's the type of tickets dat cannot be photo identified! Keeper cannot be charged! IT WORKED. its not a thought process!
@bigtingsz It is fairly common for a name in another country to be supplied, but if it was that simple - then everyone would do it - so the police will ask for proof that the person a) exists, b) was in the country at the time c) was insured, d) flight details.
You simply do not understand how it works - do some research then come back.
@bigtingsz Unless it can be proven that there was insurance cover in place, the registered keeper will face prosecution for allowing the vehicle to be driven without insurance.
@lollygaggle U ARE SIMPLY AN IDIOT! CAR IS DRIVEN without consent BY ACCOMPLICE WHO RESPONDS BACK AND ADMITS LIABILITY TO POLICE FROM IRAQ. POLICE NOW ASK WHAT THEY WANT FROM OFFENDER IN IRAQ "ACCOMPLICE" NOT FROM KEEPER..THAT ACCOMPLICE VISITED KEEPER AND USED HIS VEHICLE AND LEFT THE COUNTRY. THE LAW CANT CHARGE KEEPER IF ACCOMPLICE ADMITTED TO OFFENSE.! THEY NOW ONLY CAN INVESTIGATE WITH THE ACCOMPLICE WHO ADMITTED TO OFFENSE and he can LATER STOP REPLYING TO COPS about the case!
@lollygaggle unless you wanna stop making your own scenarios to try and stop me from explaining the loophole in the system and instead of being vague in saying everyone would do it. open your eyes! IT DOESN'T APPLY TO everyone. and every ticket is different, and the level of offense makes an impact on any kind of investigation, and weather the police SPEND + MONEY TO INVESTIGATE IN THE FIRST PLACE! IT HAS WORKED AND WILL CONTINUE WORKING FOR MANY CITIZENS IN UK!! NOT PURE ENGLISH PERHAPS! END..
@bigtingsz THE CAR WAS DRIVEN WITHOUT CONSENT! Where do you keep bringing up things like if the keeper cannot prove he had appropriate insurance and that nonsense. The keeper never gave the keys to that offender!! he can just supply his details to police, and police can investigate, and must send documents to accomplice, and once accomplice admits to offense. They and the Law can fuck off. cos KEEPER IS INNOCENT! LOL.. get over it !! i don't care if you think no one can get away! WE DO!
@bigtingsz You still avoid the key issue. Are you suggesting someone is always in Iraq waiting for a NIP every time you've driven? Who is in Iraq?
Over 98% of all NIP's are issued by camera processing units manned by people whose only job is to follow up such correspondence, so the money being spent is just to identify attempts to pervert the course of justice. Unless the information supplied satisfies these people that the person was in the country, then it goes back to the keeper.
This is just stupidity. There are reason they put speed cameras in. It is so easy to 'hate' cameras. But, this is your own perception because "a little over is ok?" who pays for the cameras? err you do? who pays for them when they are replaced.. you do. You wouldn't go burn your house down now?
Speed cameras are placed in areas that have had high fatalities and collision area on a road. How much do you think it costs the government every time they have to clean someone off the road??
What a superb montage of good clean Christian work, keep up the good work and most importantly ignore Lolly(spastic)gaggle
XTee500 3 days ago
I agree with camera's in certain places like outside schools but the authorities lost the respect of the hardworking motoring tax payer when they started using them as cash generators. Now I'm glad to see these pictures..now we just need to hang the bastards that introduced them in the first place.
3603089 1 week ago in playlist More videos from BennShockley
@3603089 - Ive been against these monstrous things for the past 5 years, they cost the taxpayer so much its ridiculous - something like £75,000 to set one up and £50,000 a year to run the thing - obviously back then everyone was marvelling Labours Soviet police state - until they saw the fucking bill - now who was right? We’re 1 trillion in debt thanks to the money they wasted on surveillance & middle eastern crusades for oil.
GoVir4l 6 days ago
@GoVir4l I hear you my friend...I hear you. 100%
3603089 6 days ago
@GoVir4l Hi, a Gatso will set you back @ £40 - 45k depending upon location.
Actually, revenue v running costs have been pretty much balanced, so the tax payer has only been spending @ £10 - 20m per annum & most of that in criminal damage replacement costs.
Hope that helps.
lollygaggle 6 days ago
@3603089 Hi, can you supply an evidence that supports the need for cameras outside schools?
lollygaggle 6 days ago
@lollygaggle I don't need to supply "an evidence" as you put it, it's just common sense that traffic calming measures should be in place where children gather like schools and playgrounds....children often don't look when crossing a road (fact) so traffic should be forced to slow down in these area's.
3603089 5 days ago
@3603089 Hi, there is no KSI/collision data that backs up your view about schools needing speed enforcement. What you have not considered is that the local authority will have a human school crossing patrol at arrival/collection time, this will be demanded by parents & is done as a matter of course.
Also, the amount of parked vehicles & people at peak times, naturally slows the traffic.
Hope this helps.
lollygaggle 5 days ago
@lollygaggle Yeah! Whatever.
3603089 3 days ago
@3603089 Hi, thanks for responding.
So do I understand from your brief comment that you have now understood the folly of your original stance?
lollygaggle 2 days ago
This is a true moral duty. Arbitrary tax applied as some petty punishment for some petty crime should be taken head on.
MrSmith1002 1 month ago
You cannot (reasonably...) compare a machine with a person
A machine says 'dangerous' if you pass it over the limit, in the dead of night with nobody around, yet that same machine says that an errant mother who kills a child outside a school wa driving 'just fine' because she was only doing 27 MPH!
Machines are stupid - tear them down and use the money for real policing with people!
enginetorque 1 month ago
@enginetorque Can you explain the fixation regarding accidents outside schools? Is a child killed outside a school worse than one killed in a housing estate?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle - If you're questioning the "fixation about schools" in the manner I think you are then we might aswel fit every car on the road with a speed lock when it enters a particular area - but we all know that would only result in a mass exodus of this nation - leaving you lollygaggle all alone rocking back and forth in a dark room uttering quietly to yourself over and over "they're all speeding.... they're all speeding" - have you ever considered getting help?
GoVir4l 6 days ago
@GoVir4l Hi, can you elaborate as to the schools comment?
lollygaggle 6 days ago
@enginetorque too true, if you pass a camera at 35 mph at 3 am when no ones around you get convicted and are a criminal
if you kill someone and put them in the boot of your car get drunk and drive your car with no t+t and no insurance passed the same camera at 29 mph your not a criminal... they are a joke...nothing but cash machines for the police and the authorities
deanosaur07 1 month ago
@deanosaur07 Hi, 35mph in a 30mph zone would qualify you for a speed awareness course = no points.
Equally, the breathalyser will not determine the velocity of your vehicle, or a microscope will allow you to catch a shoal of cod.
Speed enforcement has actually run at a loss since Feb 2007.
lollygaggle 6 days ago
That SHOULD read 'one size fits all is entirely INappropriate - my typo!
enginetorque 1 month ago
Speeding cameras are a lazy and feckless 'one size fits all' attempt to subjegate and control our driving habits and as drivers come in a variety of flavours and sizes, one size fits all is entirely appropriate. A driver concentrating on the road at 60 mph is a lot safer than a car full of kids on the school run with a fraught mother weaving around at 35 mph as she shouts into the mirror at little johnny - etc etc.
enginetorque 1 month ago
@enginetorque It is the driver travelling at 60mph in a 40mph who isn't concentrating who best benefits from a NIP.
Note from your attempts at literary recovery, how easy it is to make a mistake even when you are concentrating.
Are you suggesting that motorists should be given a freehand at choosing their own behaviour out on the public highway?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
if a speed camera flashes, it failed to slow someone down. with millions of people being caught by speed cameras i would say thats good proof they don't work.
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex Such devices are designed to trigger if you choose to ignore the posted threshold. It is the resulting fine, points or speed awareness course that then encourages you to obey mandatory traffic signage.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle doesn't mean it works. things that work are speed bumps or bends in the road, there are many ways to reduce speed that actually force people to slow down, but these are optional. they are the only system to automatically issue fines. also i know people who have been caught accidentally because signs were obscured or they simply missed the speed change sign. there are some people who break the law and some who make mistakes, should they be lumped into the same group?
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex Fines are not automatically issued, each frame has to be viewed by a member of a processing unit, in fact the above kit uses conventional 35mm camera film that has to be processed just like taking it to Boots.
If someone chooses to be oblivious of traffic signage then that is their choice.
Speed enforcement is just one aspect of traffic management, physical traffic calming measures is another subject entirely & much more expensive to implement.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle they are automatically issued in that people don't get a chance to explain themselves, thats charged without trial effectively.
there is a difference between being oblivious to traffic signage and a minor mistake. can you honestly say you have never made a mistake whilst driving? never missed a turn, or accidentally drifted over the speed limit? there is a BIG difference between a mistake and a genuine disregard for safety on public roads.
since when has safety been about cost?
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex You don't understand, a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution), is issued & everyone has the option to decline to pay the fine/take the course & have their day in court - there is never an automatic fine & points. Everyone without exception has the opportunity to explain themselves.
How do you suggest any road safety initiative is funded without money? Given the current financial climate, everything is about cost, a camera processing unit can easily cost £200,000 a month.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle that is not true, i have had 9 points and i was never given any options and believe me i read everything and triple checked because i would have definitely opted for the course instead.
i am pretty sure that putting a rubber speed bump down outside a school wouldn't cost £200,000
anyway, it seems like curing the symptom not the cause, why do people speed? maybe stress? lack of sleep and food? i think that should be looked into more than just trying to force people.
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex It is 100% accurate - are you saying you did not receive a NIP? This contained all your options.
If people drive above the posted threshold in a fatigued state, then you seriously want them on the road with families on their way to school?
There is nothing to suggest that schools need speed enforcement measures as the local authority has this covered with human crossing patrols.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle i guarantee absolutely that i was not given any options. i was first sent an NIP asking if i was the driver and i sent back saying yes, and they said here is where you send the fine and your license. i checked everything 100 times because i knew other people sometimes got a choice.
what can you do about it? there are loads of people that i feel shouldn't be allowed to drive, if someone is tired maybe they don't speed and don't get caught but they are still on the road.
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex You simply misunderstood the documentation - everyone has the choice, without exception.
There are countless motorists who shouldn't drive, but there is no perfect system to remove them.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle i promise you i double checked and had other people check too, it was 8 years ago, maybe its changed? but i would have taken the course, if the courses are so effective then shouldn't it be really obvious that people can choose them?
no there is no perfect system to filter good and bad drivers but it can be evened out with better education during driving tests, and more police to spot bad drivers, i feel that is always better than just a camera no matter how cheap it might be.
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex No, it was only an alleged offence, the back of the S172 request where you completed the driver's details had a box that you should have ticked - you didn't tick it.
When you were sent the second set of documents, you should then have written back saying you wanted a court hearing. What would have been your defence?
Nine points - all for speeding?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle you posted on another comment that sometimes driving course is not offered, could that not be the situation?
i had nine points for speeding all very close together, i was 17 and made plenty of mistakes, but i never crashed due to excessive speed. i would do about 1000 miles a week for work, you get tired and want to get home its easy to make mistakes. i am not saying its an excuse and i didn't complain that i got points, i just think there are better ways of handling these problems
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex Your speed was too high for the course then.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle thats fine, i knew i had checked the paper work properly. still it didn't stop me repeat offending like a course may have done, so i think that is a failure in the system. and again i think the speed awareness should be part of the test, why wait until people do things wrong?
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex Are you suggesting that your driving instructor, the Highway Code & the test didn't very clearly highlight that all roads carry a maximum speed limit?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle sure they did but its the psychological effect that should be emphasized,such as visiting wreckage, showing pictures of crashes etc, telling me i shouldn't go above 30 on this road obviously didn't work, showing me what the person i could have hit would look like afterwards might also if i had had the opportunity to mess about on an airfield or something, to show how easy it is to loose control it might have helped. you don't understand how much damage a car does until after a crash
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex Why do people keep going back to prison time after time?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle totally different subject. all my points dropped off the 5 year limit a long time ago, i am a good driver, i was young and stupid back then and the system failed to prevent that, i learned to correct my mistakes, but the points and police had no effect. that is the problem, that is why cameras don't work.
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex Yes, there will always be a percentage of motorists who cannot be educated, just like habitual criminals who repeatedly serve time.
What made you learn to correct your mistakes?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle i disagree, everyone can be educated, but for example society rejects people who have done time, they won't get jobs etc but again a huge subject for another time.
there was no real turning point, i didn't have any huge crash or anything like that, i just grew up. i love cars, i know what they can do, i know how easy it would be to die even at 30mph, but after maybe 23 years i cared more about not dying and not killing other people, before then i didn't care.
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex I disagree, education is just knowledge, it is the implementation of that into action that people lack the ability to do, hence people die from smoking related diseases despite a vast raft of information being available about how dangerous it is.
From my experience, speed enforcement works for some but not for others, there is no perfect solution that fits all.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle everyone can learn. i think it is about how the information is passed, there are good ways to educate people, that work, and there are bad ways. smoking is not really a good example because the chemical itself effects judgment, but i get what you mean.
i think its the way things are done, if people understand why they should not speed, its better than just saying no you shouldn't do it. its proven that banning things makes people want to do them more.
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex Were all your points for speeding?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@lollygaggle yea SP30s
RustyNex 1 month ago
@RustyNex When you sent back the original s172 request, you missed the box that said you wished a court hearing to present mitigating circumstances.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
bad driving is not the same as speeding - fast and capable is far safer that slow and inept - cameras do not make people drive better - just slower
enginetorque 1 month ago
@enginetorque The primary object of speed enforcement is to encourage motorists not to exceed the posted thresolds & you have clearly acknowledged that in your response.
It is accepted that there is a percentage of drivers who drive badly & that whilst human beings control motor vehicles, collisions will take place, so when a crash occurs, which they will, physical trauma is minimised.
Speeding IS bad driving.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
speed cameras are great!!!...............At locations like schools all the rest are just money boxes.
lea1mercian 1 month ago
@lea1mercian Where is the evidence that speed enforcement is needed at or near schools? Local authorities have that all boxed off with human crossing patrols, not to mention that traffic runs very slowly past schools at arrival & kicking out time due to the masses of traffic parked in the road.
Evidence to support your claim with accident related stats please?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
Excellent Well done I say, very nice song, I agree with enginetorque It would be very sad to see these actions becoming a trend, I also could not condone criminal behaviour
XTee500 1 month ago
Speed cameras are DANGEROUS - they invoke panic braking and unsafe driving - folks are more interested in not getting a ticket than causing a pile up (understandably)!
Speed doesn't kill - but a sudden stop most definitely does - speed cameras have the tail wagging the dog!
enginetorque 1 month ago
@enginetorque It is the velocity that the vehicle was travelling at the point of impact that generates the level of physical trauma.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@enginetorque It someone braked & skidded when a traffic light turned red - would you blame the traffic lights?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
I think the subtle nature of my sarcasm re my earlier post has been missed by some...............
When I say 38k well spent - I meant in the destruction of the sodding revenue collection machines :-)
Now I would never advocate criminal behaviour, but thank goodness for those that don't need my encouragement.....................
enginetorque 1 month ago
@enginetorque You misunderstand, speed enforcement costs more than it generates, the issue of 'revenue' completely missed by those who have no idea of the running costs involved. A camera processing unit can easily cost between £200 - 300k a month to operate.
The above gentleman were making a film involving riding in excess of 160mph on public roads - when their premises was searched following their arrest, animal cruelty videos were also found.
Feel free to congratulate them.
lollygaggle 1 month ago
I like this lol
conkeroonee 1 month ago
38 k a pop - money well spent
enginetorque 1 month ago
@enginetorque It is gratifying that someone has the courage to come on here & openly stand up for speed enforcement - well done!
lollygaggle 1 month ago
This is the only slideshow i youtube i like lol
MiiDGETNUFC 1 month ago
@MiiDGETNUFC Each replacement Crown Pole, radar, camera, controller & flash unit costs the taxpayer in excess of £30k - what is it you like exactly?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
nice nice destroy all speed cameras
kaaaaazzzz 2 months ago
Comment removed
neogastropoda1 2 months ago
ACE - good job
alastairellis 2 months ago
i need to do that do a speed camera around my area i seriously thing there something wrong with that camera
quiave 3 months ago
@quiave You mean it takes pictures when speeders go past?
lollygaggle 3 months ago
nice vid !
kanekul 3 months ago
fuck me how many speed cameras did u burn are u a maniac or wot
LOPEZdJUNGLIST 4 months ago
Ok, then how do YOU suggest we tackle motorists that drive through 30 mph speed limits at 60?......or idiots in Audi's, BMW's and other high-powered cars that think motorways are their own personal playground and test track?
Darkside1974 6 months ago
@Darkside1974 Is this directed at me? Please use 'Reply' in future.
You still do not understand. 99% of all speeding detections are generated by civilians in vans. They use Ultralytes (models 100 or 1000) which is connected to the Concept DVD recording system. They are not regular officers, but do produce evidence that can be reviewed, unlike the example you quoted about arguing with a police officer which can go nowhere as it is their word against your's.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
You can argue with a police officer, you can't argue with a mechanised box.
Darkside1974 6 months ago
@Darkside1974 You haven't thought this through. A static camera has secondary check marks & two photos taken a known time apart. This will allow you to work out your speed, but if stopped by a police officer with an LTI, you have nothing - & you want to argue with a copper?
Static camera every time.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we've done several of these now, and what a sense of satisfaction it gives too. i also ride a yamaha R1, WITHOUT numberplate. big brother, kiss my SORRY ass.
MrTubbymarshaII 6 months ago
we've done several of these now, and what a sense of satisfaction it gives too. i also ride a yamaha R1, WITHOUT numberplate. big brother, kiss my SORRY ass.
MrTubbymarshall 6 months ago
Vandalised Speed Cameras - Porn to Motorists :-D
Darkside1974 6 months ago
@Darkside1974 And a £35k bill to the tax payer.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
@lollygaggle Finally something worth paying for out of our taxes...
Darkside1974 6 months ago
@Darkside1974 Couldn't agree more, now static camera numbers have diminished, mobile enforcement has taken over. No warning signs, no big yellow box, just vehicles that can get you way before you spot them - the LTI UL1000 has a range of 999m.
Brilliant.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
The motivator here in Australia is not revenue, it's pressure from insurance companies on the state governments. Joe Bloggs has a crash, sues main roads, their insurer pays out to Joe Bloggs, the insurer increases premiums for the governments, government reacts by trying to lower its risk profile that the insurance company charges them by, so they introduce "road safety" speed cameras.
It works the same way in OH&S, that's why most companies are safety nuts. Not because they care about you.
zforce69 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi- comments on your video - from ‘lollygaggle’ - Interestingly the same self-opinionated individual appears in comments in videos I’ve posted - such as "Speed Camers & £100K police lie"
This ‘individual’ - to me appears to be more of an organised in-house ‘pig’ monitoring unit - trying to sidetrack public opinion from Police corruption matters
I wonder - how many female prisoners lollygaggle has raped - or perhaps he specialises in selling dead childrens details to the press ?
thewavingtrucker 6 months ago
@thewavingtrucker I am not a 'he'.
Are there any further assumptions you wish to profer?
lollygaggle 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lollygaggle - not a 'he' - thank you - one more part of the jigsaw - and still you have not provided the official references on highway code matters requested by 'the waving trucker' - would you care to provide a rank /position to establish your credentials?
thewavingtrucker 6 months ago
@thewavingtrucker Housewife, three children.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
I mean "vigilant" towards other drivers and as a pose to the stability of my car when going at speeds over 30/40mph. And I will admit, I seen the camera's but I thought they were more deterants than anything and also, when coming home from a gig that took 3 hours to get to, spent 4 hours doing an exhausting show for, packing your equipment away and having another 3 hours potentially to get back, of course I'm going to want to put my foot down a little, especially when roads are clear and its 3am
ashleelmb 6 months ago
@ashleelmb What type of cameras were they that detected you?
lollygaggle 6 months ago
@lollygaggle: I duno what theyre called but they arent box/square shaped like gatso's. Theyre smaller and are like a long cylinder shape. Average speed checkers i think. Theyre temporary while theres road works on the motorway.
ashleelmb 6 months ago
This is one of my favourite Utube uploads...I hope these vigilantes keep up the good fight and keep burning these fuckers down!
ashleelmb 7 months ago 2
@ashleelmb You are somewhat deluded, destroying static cameras simply generates huge profits for both the manufacturer & UK suppler & the tax payer foots the bill! What is now happening, is that mobile enforcement is being dramatically increased, so no warning signs, you can be detected at up to 1000m & you'll never know where they will be parked.
Far better, the big yellow box on a pole that you can see from a distance.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
@lollygaggle: I think deluded is the wrong word...I'm simply angry about a few recent NIP's that have been actioned against me over some trivial speeds at 3am in the morning when the motorways were clear and I am just taking a little satisafaction from seeing these things on fire. So if you dont mind, let me just have my couple of minutes worth of satisfaction because quite frankly, I could just as easily go out and strangle the people who make these bastard things.
ashleelmb 6 months ago
@ashleelmb How can you possibly be detected by Gatso's on a motorway? Were they hidden?
The very worst RTC's I have attended were on early morning roads that people believed were 'clear'. One man died after a deer just appeared in front of him, the thing came in through the windscreen at 85mph & he died instantly.
Equally, I have attended inquests where people have wanted to strangle speeding motorists who had become too complacent.
There is no such thing as clear road.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
@lollygaggle: Look pal, whether youre doing 50 on a motorway, 70 or 85...youre going to die from a deer standing in the road so shall we all just scrap our cars just incase? And I can only speak for me here. I remain vigilant when I drive whether thats going under or over the speed limit. Being "complacent" doesnt come over me. I just want to get from A to B without any bother and these speed cameras stress me out moreso than any inconsiderate motorist ever has. And the camera's werent Gatsos.
ashleelmb 6 months ago
@ashleelmb I completely disagree.
Having attended ta great many RTC's, the single factor that determines the depth of physical trauma is impact velocity - the faster you hit something, the more inertia that has to be dissipated. Of all fatalities, the majority have involved exceeding the posted threshold.
I am lost by your comments regarding the destruction of Gatso's, you state '.seeing these things on fire', when in fact it wasn't one that detected you. Was it SPECS/average speed?
lollygaggle 6 months ago
@ashleelmb You say 'I remain vigilant when I drive..'.
If your focus was on the carriageway ahead, can you explain then how you came to be caught speeding?
lollygaggle 6 months ago
@lollygaggle oh dear!
pairovtitsanafanny 6 months ago
@pairovtitsanafanny Acknowledged.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
i got flashed for doin 89 in a 60 couldnt prove who was driving at time
daviedee123 7 months ago
@daviedee123 The onus isn't on the police to prove who was driving, it is the registered keeper who must identify who was behind the wheel at the time.
lollygaggle 7 months ago
@lollygaggle i was the registerd keeper sent away the log book next day into a fake name at a friends address
daviedee123 7 months ago
@daviedee123 You sent the log book away?
At the time of the alleged offence, you were the registered keeper & responsible under s172 to supply the name of the driver at the time the detection took place. Re-registering the vehicle after the offence, would achieve nothing.
lollygaggle 7 months ago
@lollygaggle just changed the date i got flashed to a week before i said i sold the car on log book
police came out looking for a car but it was parked at work asked who i sold it to an gave them the fake name never heard anythin again
daviedee123 7 months ago
@daviedee123 Extremely difficult to accept, given the sale of a vehicle involves 2 parts of the 'log book' being completed, plus DVLA would have no record of the made up name.
If you hadn't sold the car, then it would still appear insured to you on insurance database. Saying you've sold the car is one thing, but if you hadn't, then you still have to tax & insure it. There will now be a flag next to the VRM & this will be picked up by ANPR.
Perverting course of justice carries jail time.
lollygaggle 7 months ago
@lollygaggle this happened 2 year ago an never heard anything since sold the car in March this year know the new owner had problems trying to get a ne log book for it
daviedee123 7 months ago
@daviedee123 How did you insure it during the two years & tax it?
lollygaggle 7 months ago
@lollygaggle just stayed with same insurance and taxed it just the norm at post office
daviedee123 7 months ago
@daviedee123 So your name still appeared against the same vehicle for nearly two years?
You were fortunate not to do three months inside - keeping the car was lunacy to avoid three points.
Not recommended action.
lollygaggle 7 months ago
speed cameras will kill more than save, people driver slower in towns etc were speed cameras are and use lower gears so use more petrol a car driving at 29mph is far less economic than one driving at 35mph, and when millions of cars are driving at the lower speed to avoid getting speeding fines thats an extra few hundred thousand barrels of oil burnt every day which means peak oil will happen quicker and without oil no fertilizers or pesticides can be made so millions in the third world starve..
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
@MrBorderghost So what are you suggesting regarding posted thresholds in urban areas?
lollygaggle 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
@lollygaggle Prosecute the motorists who are speeding well over the limit speed cameras should only be there to catch motorist 10mph over the limit for that road and catch the real boy racers. Red light cameras should not activate till at least 2 seconds after the lights have changed to red this would avoid cars breaking sharply soon as lights change i have seen 2 accidents caused by this so the camera caused the accident not avoided it and would catch genuine red light jumper's...
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
@MrBorderghost Redlight cameras do not activate instantly on red, it is 1.5 seconds after.
So you suggest changing all 30mph zones to 40mph, for this is what would happen as soon as it became common knowledge that there is a 10mph allowance = nuts.
Please think things through before commenting in future.
lollygaggle 7 months ago
@lollygaggle Im not saying change 30mph zones to 40mph, im saying if the speed limit in that zone is 30mph speed cameras should only catch motorists going 10mph over the limit so 40mph or above and yes prosecute genuine speeding motorists...
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
@MrBorderghost You aren't thinking - if motorists know they are safe to travel 39mph in a posted 30mph zone, then it becomes a 40mph zone, the posted signage becomes meaningless.
The 'It's 30 for a reason' campaign was very clear - a little girl explains that if she's hit by a car at 40mph there's an 80 per cent chance she'll die. If hit at 30mph there's an 80 per cent chance she'll live.
35mph in a 30 zone is genuinely speeding.
lollygaggle 7 months ago
@lollygaggle The cars will be driving at a far more economical rate which in the long run will save the amount of fuel we use making them better for the enviroment and also hold off peak oil which as i have said before will lead to a lot more deaths and suffering even in todays news we are seeing the cost of energy rise because they cant keep up with demand for energy how many pensioners do you think are going to suffer this winter or even freeze to death efficency is the answer...
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
Comment removed
lollygaggle 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrBorderghost Is that an admission that you realise allowing 33% will simply render posted thresholds pointless?
You are off on a tangent that will not be implemeted - focus on what 'is'
lollygaggle 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lollygaggle So because it will never be implimented we should just accept it, thats the problem people just accept whatever the goverment throws at them.
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
@MrBorderghost So you believe that those families who live next to urban roads would condone a raising of the posted thresholds where their kids interact?
lollygaggle 7 months ago
@lollygaggle I have not said raise the posted threshold, my point is still the same cars are using the last of the worlds oil at an alarming rate and so forcing them drive at 29mph they are not economical by letting them drive around 35mph the average family car can get another 5miles per gallon times that by millions of cars and you could save billions of barrels of oil a year and if you understand how oil feeds the worlds population would save millions of lives from starvation...
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
@MrBorderghost No, you have said the threshold should be raised to allow motorists to avoid prosecution. How is that not raising a posted 30mph to 39mph? The 30mph signs become redundant because everyone can simply drive a lot faster & not be concerned about being NIP'ed.
So many cars on the road give low MPG, Range Rovers, Cayennes, large BMW's etc all with just one person in - that's the issue, not the speed, the vehicle in use & how it is used.
lollygaggle 7 months ago
@lollygaggle Why i understand what you are saying about cars could drive upto 39mph at least only the genuine drivers who take the p### with no consideration for others would be the ones who get prosecuted. As for cars that give low mpg that certainly is an issue the only good thing about the rise in the cost of fuel is it will hopefully get many people into smaller economical cars or out of there cars altogether, i have done my bit and no longer own a car and cycle or walk...
MrBorderghost 7 months ago
Speed camers have nothing to do with road safety. there all about making money, creating jobs and stimulating the economy
@lollygaggle 'It's 30 for a reason' campaign was very clear - a little girl explains that if she's hit by a car at 40mph there's an 80 per cent chance she'll die. If hit at 30mph there's an 80 per cent chance she'll live.
Yes but if she'd of learned to cross the road properly she wouldn't of been run over at all
Please think things throu before commenting in future
GoGetDaGimp 6 months ago
@GoGetDaGimp You completely misunderstand & are misinformed.
Speed enforcement has been costing more to run that it generates, in fact it has been running at a loss for nearly three years, it has never 'stimulated' the economy.
It is a lovely idea concerning pedestrian safety & education, but human beings will always do dafty things & walk out without looking.
Link sent that may help your understanding.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
@lollygaggle sorry but it is you that misunderstands & is misinformed
1.You need to learn the difference bewteen "The truth" and "The whole truth" , you can tell "The truth" but still mislead peolple.
2. You clearly are unable to see the big picture. which is why you read the "Are speed cameras simply cash cows" article and came to the conclusion you did. It states several times they dont know how much it costs to run the cameras, so how the hell can you say its Fact they'er not cash cows
GoGetDaGimp 6 months ago
@GoGetDaGimp Thanks for responding.
The big problem with such a forum as this, is that individuals are unable to supply anything other than what is available. I supplied the link because it is fairly data rich, however not evidence, & certainly not the basis of my experience.
The UK is billions in the red & speed enforcement has only dealt with comparitively very small quantities of money after running costs paid.
What is the basis of your views, what are your sources?
lollygaggle 6 months ago
@lollygaggle
3. your lack of big picture skills is very clear in your reply to me.
[[Speed enforcement has been costing more to run that it generates, in fact it has been running at a loss for nearly three years, it has never 'stimulated' the economy]]
3a. Are you saying, that because its been running at a loss for nearly three years. that this means it dosnt 'stimulated' the economy" ? do you know how many jobs have been created by speed enforcement? im guessing not.
GoGetDaGimp 6 months ago
@lollygaggle
3b. You said [[in fact it has been running at a loss for nearly three years]] So what about the past 7+ years then? Even if just 1 of them years they created an income from speed cameras then your statement that "it has never 'stimulated' the economy" would just be wrong, wouldnt it ?
4. plz dont send me links from web sites like fullfact again. They & you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "fact". Quotes from spokepersons are not FACTS
GoGetDaGimp 6 months ago
@GoGetDaGimp To reiterate, the supplied link is not designed to be evidence of anything, merely a fairly good representation of the status quo.
Supply job numbers created & sources & the financial figures of all SCP's since 2004.
lollygaggle 6 months ago
what a great vid nice to see these money making bits of crap burnt,thats the best way for these things out of commision for good.
stevedewsbury 8 months ago
@stevedewsbury Static cameras are replaced by mobile ones - someting you cannot see from hundreds of metres away. Mobile cameras can ping you at 1000m & in 0.3sec, which do you really prefer?
lollygaggle 8 months ago
The only good speed camera is a burnt out one. I'd love to see lots more of these!
terrymanning1 8 months ago
Don't forget police need to identify your face as the driver to prosecute!!!! someone else can be driving your vehicle!!! Simples! As long as someone CAN claim liability for that offense even if u receive one by post!!! like a cousin or a fake brother's name at a different address! they sign and send back!! just make sure you have the means to cover your back side if they cops prove otherwise!!!! LOOPHOLE in everything as long as something exists it has a weakness!! THINK CAR HIRE COMPANIES!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz Complete nonsense, it the responsibility of the registered keeper under s172 RTA to supply the details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. The police don't have to supply anything until you've entered a plea. There will not even be a face photo if the vehicle iis moving away from the camera.
Hire comnpanies?
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@lollygaggle THAT'S MY POINT EXACTLY!! Read down the page!! if u can be bothered!! By Law YOU the registered keeper Cannot be prosecuted! if police try it on the register keeper then you say that the nominated driver drove the car without keepers consent in the first place!! an no way police will be able to bring photos of a face when you get a speed ticked from the back!! unless you're involved in more serious offense.. like a shooting!! and they will track the car on all its journey!!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz If the vehicle was taken without consent & you can prove it, then the driver would be done for TDA. Which law are you under the impression says the registered keeper cannot be prosecuted under?
if the name & adrees of the driver are supplied by the registered keeper then their obligations have been met, however this will ONLY work if the nominated drive can be contacted.
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@lollygaggle Exactly. registered keeper met obligations and the offender admits responsibility and REPLIES BACK to cops.. but if then that driver later cannot be contacted as he has left the country... or died.. or whatever reasons that could happen.. the police will then not be able to go and prosecute the registered keeper! it will be against that registered keepers rights BECAUSE he cooperated and gave the details of the offender who admitted to offense!!!! Thank God someone understands!!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz So are you saying that every nominated person you have supplied leaves the country or dies?
What is this about hire companies?
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@lollygaggle lets just say... the police never investigateD with the registered keeper or came back to them... and in this case FAKE or false offenders can notify Registered keeper once documents and liability is signed and sent back to police. In terms of registered keeper being pursued it would be difficult and costly and out of the cops way as they don't suspect the registered KEEPER hold more evidence than a number plate and they cant pursue at that stage! no CASE! LOOPHOLE!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@lollygaggle hire companies provide the driver/hirer name and address even if that driver resides and is NOW in IRAQ. police know they cant pursue him! same scenario with the relative that left the country!! same is required to provide a driver and address and if in this case they documents come back to cops signed from offender they cant pursue keeper. THEY MUST GET THEIR PAPERS BACK TO POLICE!! otherwise they will pursue keeper! someone else admitted liability! really simple!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz What evidence does the registered keeper supply that proves the driver is in Iraq?
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@lollygaggle Just a valid Iraqi address!!! where there will be someone signing liability and returning the documents back to the UK. the documents must be sent back to police!!! and as soon as the documents send back to UK police. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE!! SOMEONE ELSE CLAIMED LIABILITY. Registered keeper has no more liability!!! I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY AND HOW you find that a registered keeper is obliged to supply MORE proof. keeper is innocent hence other offender sent back documents ;-) !
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz Who has admitted liability if the driver cannot be contacted?
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@lollygaggle the FAKE driver IS actually contacted in the beginning of the process!!! where the keeper actually nominates him as the driver at time of offense....... but after the Fake driver admits liability and send back documents to police.. there is then no need for the keeper to disclose anymore information!!! and now that the new driver claimed lability.. Police are after him!! and he actually doesn't exist except on that piece of paper that they got back! Hence keeper of the HOOK!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz No - the registered keeper is aloways contacted 'in the beginning'.
You haven't thought this through, someone in Iraq would have to respond - no response, then the registered keeper would be back in the frame. The person in Iraq would have to supply flight details to prove they were in the country at the time of the offence & insurance details to prove vehicle cover whilst in the UK.
Fake driver = no documentary evidence of ever having driven - plus don't forget face photos.
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@lollygaggle OFFENDER RESPONDED TO UK COPS! what ever happens AFTER that CONFESSION is not the Keepers business!!! such as police asking 4 insurance docs or flight details!! are you kidding me? keeper has no more duties once offender admits liability to UK cops. that's up to the police and offender who admitted liability to chase each other to get the rest of the details sorted, weather he had insurance or valid license! KEEPER COOPERATED & IS NOT GUILTY! ofcourse face photos is different!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz Who is in Iraq responding to the s172 request?
If there is no response, the registered keeper is recontacted because they haven't met the requirements.
If someone responds from Iraq - THEY weill have to supply flight details, date, time, flight number of when they went to Iraq.
I ask again - who is in Iraq waiting to respond? WHO?
lollygaggle 8 months ago
Respond to this video... when Keeper nominates Offender, and Offender responds back liability to UK. How on earth do you see cops asking keeper for more Proof of docs or flight details. keeper has Rights TOO! he supplied what the law requires! police cannot bend the law! they haven't got other picture evidence on this occasion(S) ! They just got a number plate! That's the type of tickets dat cannot be photo identified! Keeper cannot be charged! IT WORKED. its not a thought process!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz It is fairly common for a name in another country to be supplied, but if it was that simple - then everyone would do it - so the police will ask for proof that the person a) exists, b) was in the country at the time c) was insured, d) flight details.
You simply do not understand how it works - do some research then come back.
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@bigtingsz Unless it can be proven that there was insurance cover in place, the registered keeper will face prosecution for allowing the vehicle to be driven without insurance.
lollygaggle 8 months ago
@lollygaggle U ARE SIMPLY AN IDIOT! CAR IS DRIVEN without consent BY ACCOMPLICE WHO RESPONDS BACK AND ADMITS LIABILITY TO POLICE FROM IRAQ. POLICE NOW ASK WHAT THEY WANT FROM OFFENDER IN IRAQ "ACCOMPLICE" NOT FROM KEEPER..THAT ACCOMPLICE VISITED KEEPER AND USED HIS VEHICLE AND LEFT THE COUNTRY. THE LAW CANT CHARGE KEEPER IF ACCOMPLICE ADMITTED TO OFFENSE.! THEY NOW ONLY CAN INVESTIGATE WITH THE ACCOMPLICE WHO ADMITTED TO OFFENSE and he can LATER STOP REPLYING TO COPS about the case!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@lollygaggle unless you wanna stop making your own scenarios to try and stop me from explaining the loophole in the system and instead of being vague in saying everyone would do it. open your eyes! IT DOESN'T APPLY TO everyone. and every ticket is different, and the level of offense makes an impact on any kind of investigation, and weather the police SPEND + MONEY TO INVESTIGATE IN THE FIRST PLACE! IT HAS WORKED AND WILL CONTINUE WORKING FOR MANY CITIZENS IN UK!! NOT PURE ENGLISH PERHAPS! END..
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz THE CAR WAS DRIVEN WITHOUT CONSENT! Where do you keep bringing up things like if the keeper cannot prove he had appropriate insurance and that nonsense. The keeper never gave the keys to that offender!! he can just supply his details to police, and police can investigate, and must send documents to accomplice, and once accomplice admits to offense. They and the Law can fuck off. cos KEEPER IS INNOCENT! LOL.. get over it !! i don't care if you think no one can get away! WE DO!
bigtingsz 8 months ago
@bigtingsz You still avoid the key issue. Are you suggesting someone is always in Iraq waiting for a NIP every time you've driven? Who is in Iraq?
Over 98% of all NIP's are issued by camera processing units manned by people whose only job is to follow up such correspondence, so the money being spent is just to identify attempts to pervert the course of justice. Unless the information supplied satisfies these people that the person was in the country, then it goes back to the keeper.
lollygaggle 8 months ago
each of these caremeras cost 20.000£ to install, some of them 40,000. in rural areas
lmosidze 8 months ago
Burn in hell!!!!
AllRiseForDrEvil 9 months ago
all great pic's
smigbabb 9 months ago
This is just stupidity. There are reason they put speed cameras in. It is so easy to 'hate' cameras. But, this is your own perception because "a little over is ok?" who pays for the cameras? err you do? who pays for them when they are replaced.. you do. You wouldn't go burn your house down now?
Speed cameras are placed in areas that have had high fatalities and collision area on a road. How much do you think it costs the government every time they have to clean someone off the road??
allaussiegrown 10 months ago
i will give the benefit of the doubt for some of the speed camera fires being electrical caused most of thim
are just plan vandalism
hdyudu 9 months ago
best.vandalism.ever.
goll420 10 months ago
@slr1987 Speed enforcement is not designed to 'make' money - otherwise funding would not have been reduced.
lollygaggle 10 months ago
Im sad..the one i did isnt on here.
MANTLEBERG 10 months ago
Good day
I suppose each of us having been pictured & fined, myself included--almost a week$ pay X( ..have wished a lightning strike on the dam things.
That said, the camera replacement co$t goes to taxpayers,if not you, your parents, etc.
Why not be more slick, and use
plastic wrap!
It wont show, like flames/smoke, the camera still works, but the pics are blurry.
It would take longer for the city to catch it.
Ppl will eventually get upset because they end up paying the price.
*Shrink wrap eh!*
RetroCaptain 11 months ago
this looks like the work of the green hornet.... those bastards in disguise!
interlagos80s 11 months ago
@interlagos80s But isn't The Green Hornet actually Britt Reid, meaning the disguise is pointless given that everyone knows who is wearing it?
lollygaggle 11 months ago
superb
24334766 1 year ago
never seen a collection of pics as beutifull as this
MRbaXR6TurbO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Speed camera's suck
lowdailys 1 year ago
only cyclists r allowed to speed through speed cameras:) so get on ur bike, get fit and get cycling through speed cameras :)
Psionicman2000 1 year ago
@Psionicman2000 Not so, 'furious cycling' is an offence. You must always ride safely to the conditions of weather, carriageway & other road users.
lollygaggle 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Psionicman2000 done that mate! love it when they flash lol!
rodjames98 1 year ago