Challenging a speed camera.

[Sunday Driver]

OK, I'll bite.....

Speed limits are there - end of story. No use bleating about them.  The answer is simple - either stick to the limit or pay the fine.

PS: That old chestnut e-mail had been around for ages.

 

[Nick Trollope]

Years! I was told this when I got done for speeding in about 1984.

The whole scheme hinges on one statement;

Points are not assessed to your licence until all financialtransactions are complete.

This simply isn't true - one issue is handled by the court and one by the DVLA.

You'll be telling me next that speed cameras face the traffic and motorcyclists can avoid fines because they don't have front number plates. Is this true?

 

[Val_2]

When I spent an afternoon with the local gendarmes on a speed control here in the village, the binocculars they use record both the oncoming traffice and the vehicles that pass from the back view - both can be penalised. Just another little bit of knowledge.

[Ford Anglia]

Shock! Horror! Last week I agreed with something Ron wrote, today he's agreed with some of what I wrote. Amazing.[:D]

SD: SURELY, even you can see that for the police to artificially lower a limit, then station a camera inside that limit, for no other reason than to generate fines, is theft? It's the modern-day equivalent of "stand and deliver".[:P]

There were NO roadworks. The coned off section was JUST long enough for the camera van and space for cars to enter to be fined. They then were allowed out of the other end. NOTHING else was happening, just loads of gendarmes milling about. I KNOW they were getting fined because I later met a Dutchman whose car I recognised ( a very tasty M3), INSIDE the cones, on the next aire de service.

Paul: nowhere in my post did I say that no-one ever gets hurt speeding, and I went out of my way to post, IN RED, that I, in no way, condone speeding. PLEASE refrain from posting comments that will almost certainly inflame this debate.[:)]

Speeding has the potential to hurt people? So does rape, and I have the equipment, to paraphrase a very old joke. But should I be prosecuted for it, just because I MIGHT cause hurt? Or more seriously than another crime because I MIGHT hurt someone more seriously?

[Ron Avery]

FA mon nouvel ami

In certain areas of the Autoroute system on August weekends the speed limit is reduced due to traffic volumes and to reduce pollution, it is not artificial.  It is also quite common and well publicised on French TV for checks to be carried out in those restricted areas as there are always people who know better and insist on speeding.  The gendarmes normally cone off areas to deal with people who contravene the publicised limits, like your Dutchman.  By the way, I have never seen a Dutch car speeding ever on an Autoroute or a German one come to that it[blink][Www]

It is not theft to impose a lower limit, it is it acting in the interests of safety of all road users by ensuring that limits imposed for very good reasons are complied with.  Expect more restictions this year as the French government was alarmed at the increase in road deaths in France over the Easter (Paque) break.

[Sunday Driver]

[quote user="Ford Anglia"]

SD: SURELY, even you can see that for the police to artificially lower a limit, then station a camera inside that limit, for no other reason than to generate fines, is theft? It's the modern-day equivalent of "stand and deliver".[:P]

[/quote]

As Ron says, it's a road safety initiative. 

Whatever speed limit is in force, it's up to drivers to comply with it.  If the limit was reduced and they kept on driving at their previous speed, then either they were not sufficiently attentive to spot the speed reduction, or they were doing it through their own choice in the full knowledge that they risked a fine for doing so. 

Hardly theft, I would say.....[8-)]