Police with speed guns hiding behind bushes

Barks

Barks

Barks

Soldato
Joined
20 Jul 2008
Posts
4,440
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7999825.stm

A police force has denied its officers hid behind trees during an operation to catch speeding motorists.

The denial comes after photographs of officers from Central Scotland Police emerged during an operation on the A91 in Clackmannanshire last weekend.

One of the pictures shows an officer partially concealed by a tree at the roadside as drivers pass.
Click to expand...

Now I know this won't go down well with you lot but what's the fuss?

If there's one thing that I personally dislike it's people who speed well over the limit in 30mph zones. The police can hide as many cameras away in bushes as they like as far as I care.

Obviously it would be completely ridiculous if they did this on NSL roads and motorways, but I'm all for people who drive dangerously through towns and small villages getting busted for doing so. 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 NO SWEARING about it never happening.

Thoughts?
 
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.
 
It's a good idea to deploy more radar guns if enforced properly. Hiding on the other hand is stupid. The same way Gatso's and average speed cameras are highely visable, so should traffic police using speed guns.
I share the same sentiments, 30 is 30 for a reason in built up areas. But then you get 30 in what can quite clearly be a 40, or a 40 which can quite clearly be a 50.
It will happen to all of us. No matter how careful we are. We will always speed. I saw myself reach 35 just half an hour ago. It was unintentional. Does this make me a raging lunatic?
 
The thing is I honestly believe (put the fact they were hiding aside) that these mobile/temp cameras are far more effective. If you know your local area you'd have to be special to get done by a speed camera where as mobile cameras will catch the mugs who drive way too quickly on dangerous roads.
 
scott212 said:
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.
Click to expand...


How do you know the motorist wasn't doing 30? My brother broke his leg when he got hit by a car at 20ish. By brother's fault off course, but don't believe everything you see on the tele. A 30mph hit can still cause some considerable damage.
 
Ricochet J said:
It's a good idea to deploy more radar guns if enforced properly. Hiding on the other hand is stupid. The same way Gatso's and average speed cameras are highely visable, so should traffic police using speed guns.
I share the same sentiments, 30 is 30 for a reason in built up areas. But then you get 30 in what can quite clearly be a 40, or a 40 which can quite clearly be a 50.
It will happen to all of us. No matter how careful we are. We will always speed. I saw myself reach 35 just half an hour ago. It was unintentional. Does this make me a raging lunatic?
Click to expand...

In some scenarios there really is no excuse. You can't somehow "find" yourself doing 50mph through a busy highstreet and those are the sort of areas I'd support mobile cameras in. Obviously you are right in saying that some other 30mph roads could be confused and ideally these roads would not be subject to mobile cameras unless the police intention was solely to make money and punish the motorist.

Basically I'm saying the police should have the right to do this (maybe not to that extent) in SOME 30mph roads.
 
But I didn't say I found myself doing 50 in a busy highstreet did I? I said, I found myself doing 35. My point being, a lot of people will find themselves doing 35, or a little bit over the limit0 unintentionally. Do this make them a criminal?
 
I've got nothing against random speed traps, especially within 30mph zones by houses, schools but hiding (hard to know in this case on what view the drivers would have actually had) is just stupid. They would prevent people speeding by being visible. They should have more parked up in slip ways as well imo, to pull up behind people that are on the phone, driving dangerous, etc as well.


This area is within a 30mph limit and has been subject to heavy collision prevention measures.
Click to expand...

Wonder how long it took some pen pusher to re-invent the word 'crash' :rolleyes:
 
But shouldn't the police deter people from speeding rather than hiding in a bush. Hiding in a bush isn't going to stop children from being run over.
 
Janesy B said:
But shouldn't the police deter people from speeding rather than hiding in a bush. Hiding in a bush isn't going to stop children from being run over.
Click to expand...

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... ;)
 
Further proof that it's about revenue raising and not road safety... Deterrants have to be visible to be effective at controlling speed.

It also still begs the question of what they are doing to deal with the other 95% of accidents with causes completely unreleated to 'excessive speed'...
 
Ricochet J said:
But I didn't say I found myself doing 50 in a busy highstreet did I? I said, I found myself doing 35. My point being, a lot of people will find themselves doing 35, or a little bit over the limit0 unintentionally. Do this make them a criminal?
Click to expand...

No - if you cannot accurately tell how fast you are travelling it makes you a bad driver, not a criminal.
 
Berger said:
Everyone just slows down for the camera then speeds back up again otherwise....

Discuss... ;)
Click to expand...

the average speed of the vehicles over the stretch of road is lowered, which is the aim of the camera.

whats to discuss?
 
If they really wanted people to drive slowly they would use average speed cameras at either end of a stretch of road that were highly visible.

The fact they don't do this and instead try and hide and catch as many people as possible in order to fine them demonstrates that they have no real interest in actual safety at all.
 
stoofa said:
No - if you cannot accurately tell how fast you are travelling it makes you a bad driver, not a criminal.
Click to expand...

You're trying to tell me then, if it says 30, you've always, without a doubt, hand on heart been doing 30? And never even 1mph more, because, accidently doing even more than 1mph makes you a bad driver?
 
You cannot stand a policeman on a road 24/7 with a speed gun - the only way some of you feel this could be classed as a prevention.
So the only other option would be a camera - but no, that isn't fair either.

So lets see, we've got a 30mph zone that people are speeding in.
You cannot physically have a policeman there all the time and a camera just makes loads of people cry.

So what would your idea of prevention actually be then?
A free lolly if you promise not to speed?

Now if a policeman suddenly jumped out of a bush and caught someone speeding - surely said driver is now going to be paranoid that there could be somebody "hiding" at any time on any day.
So maybe then he will actually slow down and stick to the limit?

But of course such an argument falls on deaf ears because it seems to never be the drivers fault when he gets caught speeding.
It was the cameras fault for being there, it was the policeman's fault for hiding, it was the policeman's fault for being there with a speed gun.
Never the motorist with the heavy right-foot and no respect for speed limits fault.
 
Morba said:
the average speed of the vehicles over the stretch of road is lowered, which is the aim of the camera.

whats to discuss?
Click to expand...

People spend more time looking at the speedo/camera and less at the road making sure they get under the limit.

If the bad drivers who were breaking the 30mph limit were just gunned down, eventually reaching the maximum points allowed (or learnt to obay the limit) and removed from the road then there would be less cars on the road, less congestion and less accidents?
 
Ricochet J said:
You're trying to tell me then, if it says 30, you've always, without a doubt, hand on heart been doing 30? And never even 1mph more, because, accidently doing even more than 1mph makes you a bad driver?
Click to expand...

No, not at all.
What I can say is that I won't "suddenly find myself at 35mph".
If I'm doing 35mph I know full well I was going 35mph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom