Points on your driving licence...?

[survivor]

I would have thought that when you go to an insurance brokers, if you take in your licence and say 'here, have a look.' then if there are no points sown on the licence, it's not a case that you have failed to declare any that were upto 5 yrs old, but taken off the licence, it's the broker/insurance company who have failed to fully check your licence - if that makes sense..

Survivor

[seylectric]

Seems like a good place to post this! I passed a speed camera yesterday which wasnt yellow, it was back to the old original grey. Is this not illegal or something now?

 

No, it's not illegal. The ruling to make them highly visible (i.e. yellow) was only a guideline, I don't think it's legaly binding and in any case would not get you off the speeding offence if it flashed you.

 

Personally I think the signs stating that there are speed cameras on a road where there are none, or the cameras are dummies, are misleading and probably illegal since they are drawing the motorists attention to something that isn't actually there in many cases.

[JonCris]

Survivor If the insurance proposal form asks you to declare any motoring offences or in fact any offences within a given period you MUST declare them even if they have expired from you licence........To do otherwise invalidates your cover............You can only ignore such a request/question if the offence is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

[JonCris]

Hi seylectric

 

No they can display traffic camera signs anywhere within a 10 or 5 mile radius of where the actual cameras are

[patdavies]

Seems like a good place to post this! I passed a speed camera yesterday which wasnt yellow, it was back to the old original grey. Is this not illegal or something now?

 

The requirement to make fixed cameras highly visible exists within the DfT guidelines for Speed Camera Partnerships where the income from the fines is 'netted off' to cover the costs of the partnership.

 

If the camera is not hi-vis, if it is an SCP operated camera, the fines income should not be netted off, or it is a Police camera which is outwith the netting off as the fine income goes to the Court, and from there into HMG coffers.

 

In either case, it does not provide any sort of defence to a ticket.

[meagain]

I have an interesting set of photos somewhere. The first is a picture of what appears at first glance to be a routine traffic stop. The second is a close-up of one of the police vehicles involved.

[xrchris]

Am i the only person who thinks it would be more sensible to state the speed limit on the backs of cameras? At least that way nobody could complain that they did not know the speed limit applicable.

[JonCris]

Don't be silly they would HAVE to make sure we spotted it.........& that would never do.............imagine all that 'lost' revenue

[xrchris]

Don't be silly they would HAVE to make sure we spotted it.........& that would never do.............imagine all that 'lost' revenue

 

It just seems to make so much common sense to do this. To me this one omission almost proves the point beyond doubt that they are there for revenue raising purposes only.

[patdavies]

The official line on this is that they do not need to put the limit on the back of the camera and that there are two main reasons for this.

 

1) If the camera is in a limit that is 30 mph by virtue of the presence of street lights (I would guess the majority of cameras) then 30mph repeater signs are specifically forbidden and thus they cannot put such a sign on the camera. They are allowed one (and only one) pre-warning sign showing the camera symbol and 30 mph roundel on a blue background.

 

2) A driver should know the speed limit applicable on the road and not simply obey it for the camera.

 

There are other complications.

 

A Truvelo camera is fromt facing - so where would you put the speed limit sign on the camera.

 

Certain lengths of motorway have variabl speed limits. How are these to be posted on the cameras (which are on the backs of the gntries and not visible anyway)

[JonCris]

If a lengths of motorway has variable speed limit.........just ensure after passing a gantry that you change lanes when it is safe to do so before reaching the next one

[knoxvillain]

If a lengths of motorway has variable speed limit.........just ensure after passing a gantry that you change lanes when it is safe to do so before reaching the next one

 

This is SPECS you are thinking of, not Gantry Gatsos and even on specs it's not a guaranteed way of avoiding being caught.

[JonCris]

Hi knox

 

I thought only specs operate on the average speed of the target vehicle

[patdavies]

Hi knox

 

I thought only specs operate on the average speed of the target vehicle

 

Correct, and a camera can only cover one lane - trouble is you don't know which lane is covered by which camera. The camera does not have to be above the lane - it can be pointed slighly off to the adjacent lane.

 

 

Gantry cameras with variable speed limits (M25 and M42) work in the same way as Gatsos and are instantaneous - switching lanes will not help.

[knoxvillain]

Yes specs record your average speed but they are only certified by the manufacturer for use in a single lane ie you are recorded at the first camera in the fast lane and when you pass the second one you are still in the fast lane. If you are clocked in the fast lane by the first and then clocked at the second in the middle lane technically it's not admissable. however I'm not sure of all the details, I do remember some high up police person saying that it wasn't a fool proof method of avoiding a ticket. i've already got 6 points on my license so i won't be trying the theory out

 

PS I believe Gantry cameras ARE gatsos are they not? We don't have them up here in Scotland but I've met them on the M42 (a long way from home!)

[m55dlc]

The trick about changing lanes beneath specs is valid though, as for some unknown reason (and I read a whole piece on it in a sunday paper months ago so I must be an expert (?)) the technology is sufficient in the cameras to track multiple lanes, the law also allows for them to cover multiple lanes, but they haven't been approved to cover multiple lanes (huh?) so passing under a camera in lane 1 and then swapping into lane 2 evades the regulations on the camera, not the actual equipment.

 

This was apparently down to budgetary restrictions during ratification of the system, but that may be spin.

 

My advice is get one of those revolving James Bond numberplates and let it spin like a dice. When is someone going to market an LCD numberplate that changes every few minutes? It would be great for those of us out there who would like to drive faster than the archaic 70 mph on motorways

[m55dlc]

Oh bugger, the time lag / internet refresh strikes again knox! Oh, and I got an SP30 in 97, an SP50 in 99, another in 2001 and another in 2003, so I've totted up 12 points over the years. Touch wood though, my license is currently clean (erm, by mid March it will be!)

[JonCris]

Revolving no. plates?.............No if your rural get a revolting no. plate covered in cow muck............it's much cheaper

[patdavies]

I do remember some high up police person saying that it wasn't a fool proof method of avoiding a ticket.

 

Well. he would say that wouldn't he!

 

PS I believe Gantry cameras ARE gatsos are they not? We don't have them up here in Scotland but I've met them on the M42 (a long way from home!)

 

They are Gatso on M25 VSL and Redspeed on M42 VSL

[patdavies]

the technology is sufficient in the cameras to track multiple lanes, the law also allows for them to cover multiple lanes, but they haven't been approved to cover multiple lanes

 

This was apparently down to budgetary restrictions during ratification of the system, but that may be spin.

 

The technology is capable of covering multiple lanes. However, the law does not allow it as they were type-approved for only single lane operation.

 

The budgetary restrictions may be spin, but the Home Office type approval only certifies then for use over one lane each as they were only tested in a single lane configuration

[knoxvillain]

Like I said, with 6 points I'm not going to go testing the lane changing theory but if any of you would like to and report back, go for it

 

The one that always amuses me is when you see motorcyclists going through them at the speed limit, they don't have forward number plates so the cameras can't detect them!

[m55dlc]

The technology is capable of covering multiple lanes. However, the law does not allow it as they were type-approved for only single lane operation.

 

The budgetary restrictions may be spin, but the Home Office type approval only certifies then for use over one lane each as they were only tested in a single lane configuration

 

Pat, isn't that word for word what I said?

[patdavies]

Pat, isn't that word for word what I said?

 

Not quite.

 

You stated that the law did allow them to be used multi-lane, which it does not.

 

The trick about changing lanes beneath specs is valid though, as for some unknown reason (and I read a whole piece on it in a sunday paper months ago so I must be an expert (?)) the technology is sufficient in the cameras to track multiple lanes, the law also allows for them to cover multiple lanes,

[m55dlc]

Not quite.

 

You stated that the law did allow them to be used multi-lane, which it does not.

 

The trick about changing lanes beneath specs is valid though, as for some unknown reason (and I read a whole piece on it in a sunday paper months ago so I must be an expert (?)) the technology is sufficient in the cameras to track multiple lanes, the law also allows for them to cover multiple lanes,

 

Hmm, I like the misquote regarding the missing 'but they haven't been approved to cover multiple lanes' bit.

 

OK, the law does not specifically exclude being used in a multi-lane mode (therefore it ALLOWS them to), but they cannot be used in that manner currently as they have only been approved for single use.

 

Oh, and there is absolutely nothing stopping a camera above lane 1 actually pointing to lane 2 at point 1 and being connected to a camera pointing at lane 1 at point 2 to catch such offences, which is what I believe was the case with the recent (just before Christmas) installation on the M25 at Junction 18, as the number of the yellow camera units grossly outnumbered the number of lanes in the roadworks, both at the beginning and end of the stretch, but also at the entrance of the motorway at Junction 18.

 

The rule of thumb is just that, you can change lane to attempt to avoid a penalty, but be aware, it is the exceptions that prove the rule.

[meagain]

Warning signs.

 

Last time I checked, the rules on these were that for every camera there must be a warning sign within 1000m in advance of the site. Wouldn't logic also therefore suggest that there should be a camera within 1000m of the warning sign? I know of at least a dozen signs located around my old area with no camera after them. Some of them are for sites authorised for mobile cameras, which to me smacks of laziness. If they can afford to move the camera around, there's no reason they can't take the signs with them.