Police with speed guns hiding behind bushes

[Demon]

I saw that too! I'm not in the least bit surprised as it is for the most part a long straight road where you can see pretty far ahead of you. It really should have at least one camera outside Netherhall School though as it is divided into two sites and large numbers of kids cross that road to go to lessons on the other site. I speak from experience as it's my old school

Seriously though, if the whole anti-speed safety campaign was truly about safety and not revenue raising, then there would be cameras outside every school and route to school.

I drive past two schools on the way to work (before 8am), and once I saw a speed trap that was outside the school gates at 7:30, I was stuck at some lights for 5 mins watching them, and just as I went by, they had packed their gear up and where heading off.. There where zero kids around t that time, and visibility was excellent with no parked cars etc.

This totally makes me have no confidence in the police at all (in this area of policing), clearly drivers going past a school at 7:30 may be pushing the speed limit simply for the fact the 'risk' is much reduced with their being no kids and excellent visibility, yet they are targetted, however, as pointed out, when kids are coming into the school, and parents are parked to drop kids off, reducing visibility, at this time of maximum risk, it's a totally different set of drivers that are really the danger, yet are never targetted..

We have to educate the bad drivers, not penalise the good ones, and speed traps are a totally inappropriate way of doing this.

Whilst it's true that a person hit at 30 fairs better then a person hit at 35, both are still worse off then a person hit at 20.. It's more about reducing the risk of hitting anyone in the first place, and that's all about appropriate speed, something that is 100% not targetted by speed traps.

It's not that I disagree with speed traps, as people say, the limit is the limit, and even if they are largely inappropriate (either too high or low a limit), it's hard to argue that you don't 'deserve' the points should you be caught, it's just a very sad example of how poor the police/government are at targetting the real offenders.

 

[YorkshirePadd26]

Police in York used to do this all the time, hide behind trees or anything else they can.

Poppleton Road/Wetherby road is really bad seen them doing it there loads.

I don't really agree with them doing this at all as it makes it a sham

 

[stockhausen]

Because when they start hiding it proves they don't care about road safety and are just interested in making motorist into criminals. A visible presence deters stupid driving and speeding, just hiding in a bush is a dastardly and despicable act.

Absolute nonsense.

Any motorist prosecuted for speeding is more likely to stick to speed limits in future and will probably pass on the message to others. If the same motorist sees a Police Officer standing beside the road with a speed gun, he will probably slow down for ¼ mile, hope he doesn't get prosecuted and then speed up again.

The purpose of all forms of detection should always be to catch and prosecute. The expectation of getting caught and prosecuted is the greatest disincentive to committing any crime, if you don't expect to get caught and/or prosecuted - who cares?

This applies to speed cameras, they are there to force drivers to obey the law, not to get them to slow down until they are out of sight.

If a Police Officer hiding behind a bush helps with this, so much the better.

 

[Dolph]

but isn't the purpose of the law and therefore enforcement to increase road safety?

should we not revise our laws if all the research shows it to be ineffective?

 

[L0rdMike]

A young kid was hit by a speeding Audi in our local village last week (crossing a zebra crossing in a 30mph zone) and suffered a broken leg so don't give me any ******** about it never happening.

If he was speeding the child would have been dead, I have seen the ad on tv so much be right.

 

[stockhausen]

but isn't the purpose of the law and therefore enforcement to increase road safety?

should we not revise our laws if all the research shows it to be ineffective?

I suspect that you are next going to suggest that the ONLY purpose of speed limits is to allow the Government to raise income by persecuting motorists who should be allowed to drive anywhere at any speed that they personally consider to be safe?

You are absolutely convinced that ALL the research shows speed reduction to be ineffective in reducing the incidence and/or consequences of RTAs are you?

Personally, I doubt that ANY independent research shows speed reduction to be ineffective in reducing the incidence and/or consequences of RTAs.

 

[chumpit]

If your caught speeding in a 30 mile per hour area it is your own fault, The copper that caught you did not magically push your accelerator down as you drove upto and passed him.
Though I do agree that in certain areas speed limits need to be increased, I.e dual lane carriage ways and motorways. I believe that on 60mph back roads that the speed limit should be kept at 60 and enforced heavily.
My ex is a para medic and the number of times she'd have to go out to a call because of speeder going to fast and misjudging a corner or not having enough time to react to a sudden change in the road, mainly off chambers or bumps/sheep and cows in the middle of the road.
The comments that people are sprouting that the police just care about safety really are insane, has anyone who's says these comments actually talked or seen a traffic copper in their actions??
The average traffic cop spends more time dealing with other dangerous offences such as seatbelts, mobile phones and getting unsafe vehicles and drivers off the road, compared to sitting in bushes.

To put it simply the speed limits are decide by multiple factors, which includes the average reaction time of a driver vs the chance of a situation arising that will force a emergency stop.
The speed limits are not just made up out of thin air. Hence why school zones have a reduced speed limit because of the high variable of possible stopping action.

Also the system of points and fines is proven to work, as a deterrent to others and a deterrent in the future for the driver that has obtained the points. Also the reason why there is not a speed camera on every 30 mph road is a mixture of cost of upkeep and a safe area to place the camera, the main reason why most councils don't approve speed cameras in school zones, is that they believe drivers will concentrated on the camera, rather than that of the road ahead.

And a final point if you cannot keep a steady speed with out staring at your speedometer, then you really need to turn your music down so you can here the engine rev's or go back and have some lessons! As this is one of the first things you learn in a driving lesson and the so called experience that allows you to drive at excess speed should really be able to hold 30 mph +- ¾ miles on a stretch of road.


Edit: also to the guy saying hes doing 90mph on a back road, do you reckon if a tractor or any other vehicle pulled out of a field would you be able to stop in time or would you be the latest statistic on motorcyclist dieing due to inappropriate speeds??

 

[Moorron]

Edit: also to the guy saying hes doing 90mph on a back road, do you reckon if a tractor or any other vehicle pulled out of a field would you be able to stop in time or would you be the latest statistic on motorcyclist dieing due to inappropriate speeds??

but there are other factors aswell as speed in this. Remeber top gear doing this with a prosche and fiesta or like car, they proved that if you were to run out infront of them both your more likley to survive with the porker due to its better braking.

I agree assuming the road is clear is silly and you should be aware of anything round the next corner. However saying 90 on a country road is unsafe when not including the full story is abit too simple, this is the way the goverment use the 'facts' to suit their agenda.

 

[mrk]

Because when they start hiding it proves they don't care about road safety and are just interested in making motorist into criminals. A visible presence deters stupid driving and speeding, just hiding in a bush is a dastardly and despicable act.

Might as well get stabbed in the back IMO as it's the same thing

 

[Moorron]

i stongly agree we should be making every driver better, this then means they are more safe over their whole driving skill and not just with regards to speed.

What i have seen in the last 10 years is speeds reduced but bad driving increase, we have all seen the types who drive at 45 in a 60 (so are classed as super safe drivers) and then proceed to ignore sharp corners, pot holes, hidden junctions, mud on the road, road rage further up the road and so on. I scream at this lot sometimes 'can you not see that' and the like.

I remeber having a learner pull out on me on a country road near a blind corner. Fair do whe panicked but she just sat there while i jumped out and proceeded to move both cars out of the road (back into the road she pulled out from) as any minute a car would come round the corner and make things much worse. She just sat there, waiting for something to make it all better.

Speed is a problem, but IMHO is about 5% of the problems i see every day on the local roads.

 

[chumpit]

but there are other factors aswell as speed in this. Remeber top gear doing this with a prosche and fiesta or like car, they proved that if you were to run out infront of them both your more likley to survive with the porker due to its better braking.

I agree assuming the road is clear is silly and you should be aware of anything round the next corner. However saying 90 on a country road is unsafe when not including the full story is abit too simple, this is the way the goverment use the 'facts' to suit their agenda.

Only problem with that was they new exactly when the object was happing, their was no need to think just hit the breaks, in real life your brain identify the situation and then the best course of action, which at that speed can easily kill you or the person your hitting. Only real life accidents can be used to judge the speeds that you should drive on certain roads.

Also the track they did the test on was a runway, with no off chambers or bumps that may hamper braking or diesel spills.
Their is a time and a place for excessive speeds and thats track days, their cheap enough and people arn't going to wander on to the track.
Also the point people are missing is the roads are not just habited by them selfs, they may be a good driver. They maybe be able to keep a up to 90 on back roads, but human nature will catch them up either they will **** up or someone else will. And at excessive speed with the human reaction their is only going to be one conclusion.

 

[95thrifles]

The thing is, the comments from those of you saying "I speed abit but Im safe because Im a good driver" I believe in a survey 95% of people said they were good drivers, and a good proportion of those people will of had accidents. Just because you think youre a good driver doesnt mean you are. Also even if you are a good river you can still misjudge things, hence why traffic police (who are very good drivers - lots of training etc) still have accidents themselves (eg the guy up in newcastle who killed the 16yr old girl) thats why theyre called accidents, not many people intentionally crash.
And basically I agree, if you speed you deserve to get caught, the limits are there for a reason, as someone said before just because you dont think they should be doesnt give you the right to break them.
And lastly the idea of a speed limiter has been introduced, think they were prototyped in some scandinavian country, they use GPS to determine what zone youre in and limit your engine accordingly. They will get introduced here shortly and they will be voluntary, and yes I suspect if you have one your insurance will drop dramatically

 

[daveydave]

Hiding in the bush will cause people to get caught and points make prizes.

Everyone just slows down for the camera then speeds back up again otherwise....

Discuss...

Which is perfect by schools etc...the purpose being, to enforce the slow down.

You can't police every car all of the time, but by enforcing the traffic to slow down in key places, you make the roads that bit safer.

 

[daveydave]

The comments that people are sprouting that the police just care about safety really are insane, has anyone who's says these comments actually talked or seen a traffic copper in their actions??
The average traffic cop spends more time dealing with other dangerous offences such as seatbelts, mobile phones and getting unsafe vehicles and drivers off the road, compared to sitting in bushes.

The average traffic cop eh? I assume that excludes those that get told to go out and spend the day doing what the two in the article are doing. I have 3 friends who are coppers. One who works on traffic and has been sent out on a fair few occasions "to get as many speeders as you can" in a day.

 

[95thrifles]

The average traffic cop eh? I assume that excludes those that get told to go out and spend the day doing what the two in the article are doing. I have 3 friends who are coppers. One who works on traffic and has been sent out on a fair few occasions "to get as many speeders as you can" in a day.

thats abusing the law and isnt proper policing, but unfortunately the govt give the police targets so they have to find ways to meet them. Similarly one of my friends who is very high ranking officer told me that its not unkown towards end of month if they dont have targets some will actually try n provoke people who are out drunk on a fri n sat night so they can then arrest them and get their statistics. Blame the government not the police though I say

 

[Northwind]

Because when they start hiding it proves they don't care about road safety and are just interested in making motorist into criminals.

Motorists make themselves into criminals by breaking the law, the police and cameras just catching us at it. It's like saying "Instead of pursuing people who've robbed banks, we should have policemen outside every bank to prevent people from robbing them- we're just making robbers into criminals"

Why do people insist that just catching people isn't a deterrant? People with points on their licence do tend to pay more attention to the limits, right? If I had 9 points, I'd drop my speed. Wouldn't you? I know not everyone does of course, they carry on and get caught again then go on pepipoo and OCUK to complain about "scameras" instead of ever admitting they got caught out fair and square.

FWIW, I'm a habitual, daily, constant speeder outwith busy residentials, this isn't a holier-than-thou anti-speed post, I'm a persistant offender through choice- I just take personal responsibility for my actions instead of putting the blame on the enforcers and applying pseudo-logic to make myself feel better about it.

 

[Dolph]

I suspect that you are next going to suggest that the ONLY purpose of speed limits is to allow the Government to raise income by persecuting motorists who should be allowed to drive anywhere at any speed that they personally consider to be safe?

You are absolutely convinced that ALL the research shows speed reduction to be ineffective in reducing the incidence and/or consequences of RTAs are you?

Personally, I doubt that ANY independent research shows speed reduction to be ineffective in reducing the incidence and/or consequences of RTAs.

Nice strawman, I've never suggested anything of the sort.

What I have suggested (and can provide numerous sources for) is that speeding has a minimal effect on accidents occuring, and therefore focus should be shifted. There is an effect that speed has on the severity of accidents when they do occur, but to suggest it's better to deal with this than trying to prevent the accidents occuring in ths first place is flawed logic.

If we are going to spend large amounts of money trying to make our roads safer, should we not actually target things that are significant accident causes, rather than something that has a marginal effect on accident rates?

There is, of course, scope for speed enforcement, but it should be focusing on inappropriate use of speed (which can easily include driving under the posted limit), which is the part of speeding that is causing accidents anyway. The police have lost the public's trust where matters of road safety are present, due to the nature of the speed kills campaign, and they aren't going to get it back until the government allows them to start good road policing practices again.

I want safer roads, and that is why I oppose the current speed enforcement practices.

 

[FrostedNipple]

Variable speed limits are the way forward tbh. Do we need that 30 limit past the school when it is the summer holidays? Could the town go to 40 during the night when less people are out? Clearly visible signs that can change would be the way forward imo!

 

[stockhausen]

Nice Strawman, I've never suggested anything of the sort.

And if you read carefully, you will find that I haven't suggested that you have. However, by and large, you do seem to object strongly to any form of regulation, restriction or authority, don't you?

What I have suggested (and can provide numerous sources for) is that speeding has a minimal effect on accidents occurring ...

Less promises, more evidence then if you please.

There is an effect that speed has on the severity of accidents when they do occur ...

Yes, too right, it does!

If we are going to spend large amounts of money trying to make our roads safer, should we not actually target things that are significant accident causes ...

Such as?

There is, of course, scope for speed enforcement, but it should be focusing on inappropriate use of speed ... which is the part of speeding that is causing accidents anyway.

And how do you suggest this "appropriate enforcement of use of speed" should be effected?

The Police have lost the public's trust where matters of road safety are present, due to the nature of the speed kills campaign, and they aren't going to get it back until the government allows them to start good road policing practices again.

For the nth time, how do you suggest this be done, in practical, real-world terms?

I want safer roads, and that is why I oppose the current speed enforcement practices.

I would like to see the end of cancer and I am fairly convinced that we will eventually see further developments in prevention and cure. However, I would not agree that we should simply stop treating cancer because the current treatments are not 100% effective.


If you have any realistic suggestions as to how accidents can be reduced and their impact can be minimised, do share it; until then, I remain unconvinced that your attitude is not based simply on your apparent opposition to all authority.


ps - I agree that variable speed limits seem like a good idea, I understand that lowering the speed limit on the M25 works very well.

 

[Dolph]

And if you read carefully, you will find that I haven't suggested that you have. However, by and large, you do seem to object strongly to any form of regulation, restriction or authority, don't you?

No, I object to unnecessary regulation, restriction or application of authority that cannot be justified in an objective fashion.

Less promises, more evidence then if you please.

Not too much of a problem, unfortunately I can't link directly to the TrL reports, because they are not available without paying, and even if I paid, I couldn't link to them, so sources will have to be secondary (or tertiary) rather than primary.

We can start here

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/lie.html

Which contains breakdowns of the various causes of accidents, referenced from various police forces and TrL Reports.

We can then move on to this.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=16878

Which references department of transport figures showing that show that 'exceeding the speed limit' only caused accidents in 14% of cases (and that is with major and minor causes)

We can go on, but the results are much the same.

Yes, too right, it does!

Such as?

inattention, lack of observation, tailgating, poor driving habits etc etc...

And how do you suggest this "appropriate enforcement of use of speed" should be effected?

The way it used to be done, and should always have been done, by policemen who are able to make a judgement about whether the driving was dangerous/excessive etc and could take action accordingly. They can also (wonderfully) do the same for those not exceeding the speed limit.

For the nth time, how do you suggest this be done, in practical, real-world terms?

See above.

I would like to see the end of cancer and I am fairly convinced that we will eventually see further developments in prevention and cure. However, I would not agree that we should simply stop treating cancer because the current treatments are not 100% effective.

Would you advocate continued use of placebos with almost zero measurable effect? What about a treatment that made the patient noticeably worse?

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=17948
http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=18493
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

If you have any realistic suggestions as to how accidents can be reduced and their impact can be minimised, do share it; until then, I remain unconvinced that your attitude is not based simply on your apparent opposition to all authority.

Better driver training, better management of bad driving practices (including inappropriate speed, lack of attention, tailgating, etc etc). These are the big causes of accidents, and they are being ignored in favour of speed and the speed camera. The number on the sign at the side of the road rarely has any real impact on road safety, it can be too low or much too high, entirely dependant on the conditions, but the current road safety message being given is that if you're under the number on the sign, you're safe, if you're over it, you're a child killer, and that is simply a load of crap. I see appalling driving pretty much every day, most of it from people driving under the limit.

My licence is clean, has always been clean, and I don't actually speed that much. I have also had a lot of additional driver education from various sources. I want safer roads, and when I'm out on a day to day basis, it's not the speeders (generally) that I see that are dangerous, but the excessive use of cameras is meaning that the other problems, the real causes of accidents, are not being addressed.

ps - I agree that variable speed limits seem like a good idea, I understand that lowering the speed limit on the M25 works very well.

It does, just as the police letting people exceed the speed limit when it's safe also works well, it's the advantage of discretion over cameras...