Speed Cameras, Mobile Phones & Seat Belts

[Swiss Toni]

Saw a selection of pictures recently taken by our local Road Safety Partnership - of drivers and their penalties....

All over the speed limit by 10mph+ and all had additional penalties imposed for the other offences detected.

Including mobile phone, no seat belt and "Not in proper control" (driver was leant over to the passenger side - to look in the glove box?).

Final Picture was of a stolen car and the miscreants on the front seats (both convicted).

All pics were taken from the front, so clear shot of the driver.

 

[Rose Chap]

Well, foolish people for getting caught over the speed limit, though its easily done these days.

However, does that mean everytime I retrieve something from my glovebox I'm breaking the law?

Baffling that people drive without seatbelts though?!

 

[fuzzer]

I wonder if its possible to get a one way film for the front window that restricts light from a certain angle and direction.

Other than that , Its just another revenue stream for them.

 

[BTB 500]

I wonder if its possible to get a one way film for the front window that restricts light from a certain angle and direction.

If it was possible I think you'd fall foul of the window tinting legislation (which is also designed to make sure the Police can see in), if stopped.

Bottom line is that if you do something to attract their attention they will pick you up for anything else they happen to spot. That's always been the case with normal roadside stops.

 

[Carrotchomper]

TBH people who have very dark tinting on their front side windows tend to have "Stop me" written all over them. It just implies not wanting to be seen...

 

[glojo]

However, does that mean everytime I retrieve something from my glovebox I'm breaking the law?

If your actually driving then hopefully YES. Surely if something is stowed away in a glovebox then it takes seconds to stop. Root about, get what you want and then drive away?

I trust though that your remark was very much tongue in glovebox?

Take care
John

 

[Shude]

If it was possible I think you'd fall foul of the window tinting legislation (which is also designed to make sure the Police can see in), if stopped.

Bottom line is that if you do something to attract their attention they will pick you up for anything else they happen to spot. That's always been the case with normal roadside stops.

The ultimate really is a reflected flash, the lens-flare of which totally obscures the driver and possibly the whole car.

 

[BTB 500]

TBH people who have very dark tinting on their front side windows tend to have "Stop me" written all over them. It just implies not wanting to be seen...

Absolutely. I saw a 55 plate CLS 500 in central London the other day, windows so dark you couldn't see the interior at all - mad.

 

[Rose Chap]

If your actually driving then hopefully YES. Surely if something is stowed away in a glovebox then it takes seconds to stop. Root about, get what you want and then drive away?

I trust though that your remark was very much tongue in glovebox?

Take care
John

Well, I respectfully disagree.

Say it wasn't glove box, instead it was the storage bin that lives under the armrest where I keep my sunglasses. Would going in there mean I was driving dangerously? What about if I went in the door pocket to get some mints? What about if the lack of sunglasses means I risked squinting into sunlight, would that be driving dangerously? Lowering the sun visor. Driving dangerously?

Ridiculous. By that rationale doing anything other than looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel is 'dangerous'.

 

[Carrotchomper]

Ridiculous. By that rationale doing anything other than looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel is 'dangerous'.

It is! Don't do it. Hands at 10 to 2. Always. Or you're in jail. No alarms and no surprises please.

Respect my Authoritas!!

 

[glojo]

Well, I respectfully disagree.

Say it wasn't glove box, instead it was the storage bin that lives under the armrest where I keep my sunglasses. Would going in there mean I was driving dangerously? What about if I went in the door pocket to get some mints? What about if the lack of sunglasses means I risked squinting into sunlight, would that be driving dangerously? Lowering the sun visor. Driving dangerously?

Ridiculous. By that rationale doing anything other than looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel is 'dangerous'.

There are an awful lot of what ifs thrown into the question, but what about....

What if your not paying full attention to your driving?

We can all reach for conveniently placed objects without interfering with our looking forwards out of the windscreen. Your question was specifically a

'What if I reached into the glove-box?'

That is the question that was answered.

What if I opened a window?

What if I honked the horn?

What if I opened the sun roof?

These are completely different from driving a motor vehicle on a public highway (substitute busy road) and stretching across to the passenger glove-box, rooting inside this box and trying to locate a missing article. This example is so OTT, I thought your remark was very much tongue in cheek and surely no reasonable person would need to ask the question?

John

 

[MBManInKen]

Other than that , Its just another revenue stream for them.

I don't agree. I've had to take evasive or corrective action more than once because some **** was blabbering away on their mobile phone.

I'd be inclined to say that if they're not wearing their seat belts, at least it's only their own lives at stake.

But a lot of the rest of the awful behaviour on the roads these days including speeding and mobile phone use, actually puts other people at risk.

There is plenty of evidence indicating that mobile phone usage seriously impacts on one's ability to drive with the level of attention and care that is needed.

Public roads need rules. These rules are in the end a compromise and probably need to be adjusted from time to time. But rules are rules and we can't just all individually decide which ones we happen to like to obey and which not.

There, I said it. Let the flaming begin!

 

[Swiss Toni]

Ridiculous. By that rationale doing anything other than looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel is 'dangerous'.

I guess it depends on whether you find yourself in the dock or A&E?

(The chap in the photo I saw was at or below the level of the dashboard and deserves his 6 points imho)

 

[Swiss Toni]

Other than that , Its just another revenue stream for them.

For who?

 

[fuzzer]

For who?

Safety Camera Partnerships. Ive got no doubts they are run as a business and have to keep pushing the goalposts every year for targets etc.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Well I wouldn't worry, later this year the funding system will change and they will no longer receive income from speed cameras. Their funding will come directly from government, and it will not be ring fenced. So expect to see a big decline in the number of little Hitlers in their vans as local councils use the money for other purposes.