Protesting speed cameras
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: Motormouth on 10 Jun 2010 02:05 "Clot" <clot.1(a)ntlglobe.goon> wrote: >These are likely to be the locations where folk should slow down, >irrespective of whatever the limits are. Though the hand held gun would be >far safer for all and more effective! they require a police officer....... In my area speed traps are invariably set in the most convenient road (has laybyes) and where the speed limit (reduced to 40) is most safely exceeded by sensible drivers (no side turnings, parked cars, pedestrians or houses). I have never seen one near the school or village centre -- MotorMouth
From: Ian Jackson on 10 Jun 2010 03:01 In message <lbVPn.89232$hx1.65472(a)hurricane>, Clot <clot.1(a)ntlglobe.goon> writes >Rob wrote: >> Adrian wrote: >>>> Chris Hills <chaz(a)chaz6.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>>> they were saying: >>>> >>>>> The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely. >>>> >>>> Is it? I thought it was to make people drive at a legal speed. >>>> You're not confusing the two, are you? >> >> It's the stated aim by those who operate them - that's why they call >> them 'safety cameras'. >> >>>>> I would disagree that helping that aim by warning people to watch >>>>> their speed is obstructing justice. >>>> >>>> Deliberately standing so that the banner blocks the view of the >>>> camera certainly would be. >> >> Or even 300 yards up the road >> >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motorist-is-banned-over-sp >>eed-trap-alert.html > >Quite. > It is interesting that, although this was not a driving offence, as well as being fined, he was also banned from driving. Presumably the law allows this. -- Ian
From: ®i©ardo on 10 Jun 2010 04:50 On 10/06/2010 08:01, Ian Jackson wrote: > In message <lbVPn.89232$hx1.65472(a)hurricane>, Clot > <clot.1(a)ntlglobe.goon> writes >> Rob wrote: >>> Adrian wrote: >>>>> Chris Hills <chaz(a)chaz6.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>>>> they were saying: >>>>> >>>>>> The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely. >>>>> >>>>> Is it? I thought it was to make people drive at a legal speed. >>>>> You're not confusing the two, are you? >>> >>> It's the stated aim by those who operate them - that's why they call >>> them 'safety cameras'. >>> >>>>>> I would disagree that helping that aim by warning people to watch >>>>>> their speed is obstructing justice. >>>>> >>>>> Deliberately standing so that the banner blocks the view of the >>>>> camera certainly would be. >>> >>> Or even 300 yards up the road >>> >>> >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motorist-is-banned-over-sp >>> eed-trap-alert.html >> >> Quite. >> > It is interesting that, although this was not a driving offence, as well > as being fined, he was also banned from driving. Presumably the law > allows this. If you upset nanny enough you are going to get a smack! And if nanny finds that she can't smack you, she will get the rules changed so that she can. -- Moving things in still pictures
From: GT on 10 Jun 2010 05:35 "Chris Hills" <chaz(a)chaz6.com> wrote in message news:huntva$sai$1(a)chaz6.eternal-september.org... > Near where I live a mobile police speed camera van frequently parks on a > grass verge, on public property. Would it be legal to protest in the form > of holding a sign or banner, perhaps with the words "Speed kills", > deliberately behind the van to block the view of the camera? Here's what we should do... When we find a police car parked illegally on a verge or solid white/yellow line in order to generate cash for the retirement funds, we should all park in a row behind it. They can hardly book us for illegally parking when they are doing exactly the same thing!
From: AlanG on 10 Jun 2010 05:59
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:12:03 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >AlanG wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:31:02 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> However, there is no law against parking on pavements outside London. >> >> There is. > > No there isn't. Yes there is > >> It is called obstruction and the local plod use it a few > > You can park on a pavement without obstructing. You can obstruct a road >by parking on the carriageway., So? The police will still issue a FPN in this area if you park on the footpath. Note the 'elsewhere' and the 'obstruct' 244 You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs. > >> times a week at the end of our road. But only after a couple of years >> complaining from residents. I noticed one this morning with a FPN on >> the screen. Now if only they would getback to ticketing the cars that >> park too close to the junctions :( > > There is no law against parking too close to the junction. Yes there is 242 You MUST NOT You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road. [Laws RTA 1988, sect 22 & CUR reg 103] 243 DO NOT stop or park * near a school entrance * anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services * at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank * on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing * opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space * near the brow of a hill or hump bridge * opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle * where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane * where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles * in front of an entrance to a property * on a bend * where you would obstruct cyclists use of cycle facilities except when forced to do so by stationary traffic |