Best phone camera 2017
I am with you FE 156mph seems to be fast enough to avoid being photographed, what do you drive then FE.
Totally agree with you, just posted for peoples' info
I've never driven at 156 mph, but I imagine you wouldn't have time to even see the cameras at that speed.
What do I drive? I'm a true European - I drive a german car, or sometimes a swedish one.
Recently there are a number of things coming to light regarding the way the 'guardians' of the speed cameras have been conducting their business. Two well known organizations have petitioned the government about some of these abnormalities, and a response from the government is still pending.
One particular case was a motorcyclists doing 18 miles per hour, and he was booked for doing more than 56 mph. Apparently it was proven the camera had taken the speed from a passing bus at the time. The manufacturers of the cameras agreed that this type of 'mistake' can happen.
This so called loophole only exists if someone who goes through a speed camera, is served with a fixed penalty notice, then decides to plead 'not guilty' and go to court.
In so doing he/she risks a maximum penalty on conviction of 6 points rather than the 3 of the fixed penalty, or disqualification, and a fine of up to £1000 instead of the £60 fixed penalty.
You have to be very sure that the camera partnership won't serve evidence upon you before risking the above as courts have little tolerance for those who plead 'not guilty' where there is no real defence (no discount for an early guilty plea for instance).
Regarding my earlier post,apparently this particular motorcyclist (there's another two motorcyclists fighting similar cases)had the backing of the likes of the RAC and another organization, and even with this expert help, they all had great difficulty in obtaining photographic and other evidence from the authorities.
If the motorcyclist had paid the original fine, he would have also received penalty points on a clean license, which would have put further limitations on his insurance.In this particular case, it would have taken no more than a week or two to complete this process and be classes as guilty of an offense (many people do this, due to ignorance of the law plus correct procedures and thinking that they may have actually committed an offense), but in this case, because he made a challenge, it took many months more before final settlement. But at the end of the day, with expensive expert advice and help, he walked away from the court completely exonerated of committing any offense.
The police are always trumpeting how they follow the letter of the law....if the law is shown to be incorrect then drivers have every right to challenge it. If plod insists on the law being correct then they have to abide by it (that is what they always tell the public, ad nauseum) even when they 'think' it is wrong.
Top Gear revealed the 156MPH camera problem a couple of years ago.
It is relatively easy to escape conviction by camera,just dont speed.The camera's presense is warned of in plenty of time,either by roadsigns or other motorists travelling in the opposite direction.
I know that we have spoken of this before but the thing that really frustrates me, and I feel that they fully deserve any fine. Is the "it dont apply to me merchants" who in a roadworks 50 mph max controlled area stream past at speeds up to and sometimes above 70 mph.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.