A12 Kelvedon OverPass ! Safety Camera

[littlenick239]

I am sure that some of you have seen and heard about the A12 safety camera site, near Kelvedon in Essex. Well, I have now heard about this site and seen it, in action. The site is located on an overpass, and a famous Safety Camera Van is allowed to park there and do its business. The other day: Saturday, I was driving down the A12, I was doing around 90MPH, the A12 is a 70MPH zone. It was early in the morning and there was little traffic. I saw the safety camera van parked up on the overpass and decreased my speed down to 70MPH, I then passed the overpass where it was parked at the required speed. I am however confused to whether the camera would have been checking my speed when I was driving towards the trap, or when I infact passed the trap. I thought the law on safety camera vans, required for the van to be identifable, so that the driver could see the trap, slow down and then pass it at the required speed. It then fufilled its job at reducing the speed down for the area where it was parked. I am not the only person to complain about this and at work a friend did the same thing. The problem is I am only 6 points away from a ban. Not good as my job required driving.

I was wondering is somebody would kindly confirm the law and it infact they have been caught by the greed cameras.

Thank you.

 

[Sp!ke]

I think these mobile units can point in whatever direction they like.

You have 14 days in which to receive the NIP.

 

[PJH]

A12 Camera - Kelvedon

 

[littlenick239]

I have actually just had a quick read up on this, looking at the legislation in regards to visibility. Now, I interpret that if the van is intending to catch drivers coming towards the site, then it can only catch drivers within a 100 metre radius of the approved site, as this is the permitted safety camera zone. The radius is 100 metre as the driver then has time to see the van and react. If the van is pointing in the other direction, then as long as the van follows government guidelines eg colour etc…. then the motorist has time to see the van and then react. Now, the van was parked on the side of the road on the overpass, so could have being using a side window, however the legislation states that the operator of the hand gun must identify him self, to oncoming traffic (if passing, the van identifies the trap), in this case the operator was not facing towards the traffic, I did not check my mirrors to see if he was facing the other way. Usually, with the Essex Safety Camera Partnership, they have a yellow box outside of the van, on the other side. However as he was parked on the overpass, I can not see how this would be viable. That's only hope that I was doing the permitted speed, within the section of entrapment, if not then there goes the hard earned, and well then just 3 points away from the ban.

 

[littlenick239]

Good news !! Just called a friend, who I know was on his way back to uni on Sat and would have been using the A12 up to J11, to then join the M25. He saw the trap and most importantly he saw the operator on the other side getting passing traffic. Which in this case I would have been fine with as I reduced my speed as soon as I saw the van ! I mite take the legislation to part and create a set of criteria to check in the case of being caught and circulate. Something productive to do in my spare time. I am against speed traps, as they are no way a safety exercie, just a way to make easy money.

 

[andy_k]

I am against speed traps, as they are no way a safety exercie, just a way to make easy money.

Not quite sure how that works - speed cameras don't generate money from people who are abiding by the law they catch people who are breaking it and fine them.

In much the same way that ANPR cameras (almost universally supported on here) catch people with no insurance or tax and fine them

It's just different degrees of breaking the law

If people abided by speed limits there would be no revenue from these cameras - how quickly would they all dissappear if they were making a loss?

Andy

 

[littlenick239]

I think it would be best not to get in to a debate about speed lol.

The underlying fact is that if you stayed within the speed limit all the time then you would not have a problem, I do agree. However the majority do exceed the speed limit, as pointed out there is a difference between doing 80mph in a 70mph zone and doing a 100mph in a 70mph. Money should be used to improve roads in accident black spots for example change the road layout to curve speed, the answer should not be to simply place a safety van there, to slow traffic for that small section of the road. Speed cameras are a cash exercise rather then a safety exercise which councils try to promote safety through use of the safety partnership initiative. With most strict liability offences, such in the case of speed where mens rea is not required, I feel that the way forward is to improve legislation, improve awareness and show in accident black spots such in the case of Kelvedon that apart from the safety vans there are plans in place in the long run to improve the situation on the road.

Thank you for your time and help. Have a good evening.

 

[andy_k]

I fully agree regarding the Kelvedon area - in fact most of the A12

I used to live in Essex (High Ongar) and I reckon that most of the UKs crappiest drivers live in that area. I lost count of times the whole area was gridlocked because one or more of the motorways or A roads was closed due to morons running into each other.

I'd love to see more pro-active enforcement of speed limits. The fact that the majority exceed speed limits doesn't make it right really does it?

Andy

 

[littlenick239]

Andy,

I fully agree with you. I think Essex does have some of the worst drivers and some of the accidents that happen, mainly on the A12 are just simple acts of stupidity and nothing else. Living in Colchester, when an accident does occur in the direction of Ipswich, the traffic usually comes off at the northbound Colchester junction, ends up bringing the town to gridlock as it try's to re-join three junctions down the road, a nightmare to say the least.
In regards to the speed issue, its not big, its not clever however it seems to be socially recognized and in some cases accepted. We all do it from time to time. A more pro-active approach with reviewing road layouts, adding calming measures etc... would really in my eyes be seen as trying to curb the problem and if I could see this being done, then I would fully support the use of speed cameras to help ensure that the new measures work and that they improve safety, for example slowing traffic before a bend in the road, added as a calming measure through the use of a safety van.
Anyway, a very interesting subject which I have enjoyed looking in to. Maybe one day in the future, cars will use G.P.S to restrict the speed of cars to the maximum for the area they are in.

 

[andy_k]

A more pro-active approach with reviewing road layouts, adding calming measures etc... would really in my eyes be seen as trying to curb the problem and if I could see this being done, then I would fully support the use of speed cameras

you know, they've been doing that for years. At the side of roads they put these big signs with numbers on - the idea is that you keep the needle on your speedo pointing at something below the number on the big signs. Without wishing to sound even slightly sarcastic how much easier do they need to make it?

Maybe one day in the future, cars will use G.P.S to restrict the speed of cars to the maximum for the area they are in.

I'd guess that is less than 10 years away

Andy

 

[Silestanix]

I also saw the scamera van yesterday on my way back to London from Ipswich...I've gone past many of them at 75-80mph, I never hear anything from them... :\

 

[Alps]

i`ll keep a look out for them, i normally train it in nowadays, the merc hasnt been driven for the last month! got a few trips to make over the next few weekends back to london!

 

[219]

Firstly , there is no such thing as a speed TRAP : it is a speed CHECK .

A trap is something that is used to capture or ensnare someone or something.

The law states that there are maximum permitted speeds on the highways , these are generally clearly posted so that drivers know the maximum speed they are permitted to drive at . (There may very occasionally be problems with signage but such cases are rare).

If a driver chooses to drive above the speed limit THEN HE IS BREAKING THE LAW . If he is detected doing so then he has no excuse . There is no need to erect signs warning of a speed check ahead or to use marked vans or patrol cars .

The police or the 'camera partnerships' are perfectly entitled to CHECK the speed of drivers wherever they like .

The type of laser cameras used in some of the mobile vans are capable of detecting an offender a mile away ; they don't have to give you an opportunity to see the van and slow down . You are NOT 'allowed' to exceed the speed limit up to a certain distance from a camera .

Drive safely , within the limits and you have nothing to worry about . If you break the law , you are 'fair game'.

The whole idea of the 'points system' is to take persistent or habitual offenders off the road .

If you need your licence for work and already have 6 points , then it is foolhardy to continue driving at speeds which are likely to result in more points and a fine . (Remember , you can now get six points in 'one go' for a 'serious' offence).

If you can't stand the points or the fine , don't do the crime .

 

[Flasheart]

If you need your licence for work and already have 6 points , then it is foolhardy to continue driving at speeds which are likely to result in more points and a fine . (Remember , you can now get six points in 'one go' for a 'serious' offence).

If you can't stand the points or the fine , don't do the crime .

Very well said.

 

[fuzzer]

There is no need to erect signs warning of a speed check ahead or to use marked vans or patrol cars .

There is actually for Camera vans or speed camera. Normally within 1/2 a mile on the same road , one of those white signs HAS to be displayed before a FIP or Camer van . More than likely to the dismay of the camera parenerships/ local police forces who more than likely loose money because of this.

The police or the 'camera partnerships' are perfectly entitled to CHECK the speed of drivers wherever they like .

I don't think so. A speed check can only be performed when there is a suspicion of the driver having been speeding. The speed check is required to be carried out by a fully trained police officer for the equiptment being used. How the Safety camera partnerships get away with using civilians to do this in the vans with the orange lights on the roof is beyond me .

 

[Flasheart]

How the Safety camera partnerships get away with using civilians to do this in the vans with the orange lights on the roof is beyond me .

As far as i am aware the Civilians are not able to report you for an offence of speeding, however you might get a letter saying that you were spotted at such and such a time and your speed was recorded as such and such.

They are mainly used as a deterrent for those too be able to keep to a speed limit.

I must say i do find it vaguely amusing the people who come out with the old line... "but there was no warning there was a GATSO camera there, if there had been i would have slowed down." Thereby acknowledging that they are speeding, know they are speeding, know they are breaking the law. I can see it now... "its so unfair i got done for murder, there wasn't a policeman there to warn me i might get arrested and thrown into prison for life if i committed murder. Sure i knew you shouldn't do it but the police should be there 15 minutes before i get enraged to make me think twice about it."

The use of terms like Scamera/Greed Cameras only go to underline this point - it can't be my fault i was driving fast its the nasty system being hard on me for breaking the law, which of course i am entitled to do etc.....


Has the Nanny State and the 'its not my problem its someone elses' system/blame someone else culture come to this that we no longer accept when we do wrong and seek to find any excuse to wriggle out? To me it boils down to morals, moral fibre, integrity and the ability to admit ones mistakes. Maybe just maybe if people didn't look to blame others but looked within to begin with then the Nanny State would not need to exist, but people are only too glad to pass the buck and blame to someone/anyone else it is only going to get worse.

 

[glojo]

Good news !! Just called a friend, who I know was on his way back to uni on Sat and would have been using the A12 up to J11,

Are you sure? What about 50 -50?

Regards,
John

 

[Rose Chap]

Has the Nanny State and the 'its not my problem its someone elses' system/blame someone else culture come to this that we no longer accept when we do wrong and seek to find any excuse to wriggle out? To me it boils down to morals, moral fibre, integrity and the ability to admit ones mistakes. Maybe just maybe if people didn't look to blame others but looked within to begin with then the Nanny State would not need to exist, but people are only too glad to pass the buck and blame to someone/anyone else it is only going to get worse.

Thankfully not all of us have such a black/white view of this topic as you.

Its a sad fact of modern times that its easier for a local authority to reduce the speed of a section of road and enforce it with a speed camera (which generate revenue) than it is to maintain it in good condition (which costs money). It is for this reason liberatarian minded people like me question the value of speed cameras.

Comparing speeding to murder does your argument no favours. The subject of speed limits is rarely clear cut and is awash with grey areas. If you're the type of person who has absolutely faith in those who make the law then that would explain your perspective, but I maintain a healthy scepticism about those in power and don't necessarily assume every decision they make is correct.

 

[Flasheart]

What grey areas are there in speeding? You are either above, at or below the speed limit. That seems fairly clear cut. Nothing has changed in that.

I didn't compare speeding to murder - i used an extreme example to emphasise the point that people are prepared these days to blame everyone but the person in control of the accelerator pedal.

If you feel a camera is incorrectly sited and does not conform to the guidelines laid down then i suggest you do something about with the relevant authority instead of complaining that life isn't fair.

 

[andy_k]

Its a sad fact of modern times that its easier for a local authority to reduce the speed of a section of road and enforce it with a speed camera (which generate revenue) than it is to maintain it in good condition (which costs money). It is for this reason liberatarian minded people like me question the value of speed cameras.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - speed cameras do not generate money.

They are inaninmate objects placed at the side of the road which relieve people with little or no regard for the law of a few quid. That's not revenue gathering that's law enforcement.

I don't know anyone who has been wrongly "nicked" by one of these cameras as they don't give out tickets for those travelling below the speed limit.


Andy