| AIR FESTIVAL |  | | | ADD YOUR REVIEW | | | | SAILORS RETURN | | | | VIEW FROM THE HILL | | |
|
|
|
OK, SO I WAS SPEEDING...
 |
| AT THE WHEEL: Chris, Wendy and Katie Walton |
A DRIVER is fighting a speeding ticket after a camera nabbed him dashing to hospital while his wife was in labour in the passenger seat.
Chris Walton appeared before magistrates to contest the ticket after being snapped doing 37mph in a 30mph zone just before 5am.
Mr Walton, 36, told the Daily Echo he was driving his wife Wendy from their home in Ashley Heath to Poole Hospital in August last year when they were caught by a camera on Constitution Hill Road, Parkstone.
He said: "I knew it was there and drove through it at 37 mph because my wife was giving birth on the seat next to me.
"Although I have not been an angel when it comes to motoring offences, I thought that on this occasion common sense would prevail and that given a medical emergency the court would take this into consideration."
He said: "Ninety-two minutes after we left the house, my daughter Katie was born. If that wasn't an emergency then I don't know what is."
He appeared before Wimborne magistrates, who adjourned his case to be heard in Bournemouth at a later date.
Johnny Stephens, head of fixed penalties for the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, said: "The DSCP does not comment on individual cases.
"Only the magistrate can overturn an alleged offence, not the central ticket office at the DSCP.
"The DSCP is focused on a combination of enforcement, engineering and education to achieve its aim of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on Dorset's roads, as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed."
7:00am Saturday 29th March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: 2Much, New Forest on 8:07am Sat 29 Mar 08
This is why cameras do not work...had that been a copper sat with a gun..the couple would have got a police escort to hospital. Cameras can't judge things like this..now this guy has to take numerous days of work while the courts get their act together...and we, the tax payer, are footing the bill!
This is why cameras do not work...had that been a copper sat with a gun..the couple would have got a police escort to hospital. Cameras can't judge things like this..now this guy has to take numerous days of work while the courts get their act together...and we, the tax payer, are footing the bill!
Posted by: rayc, Poole on 8:41am Sat 29 Mar 08
The SCP said "The DSCP is focused on a combination of enforcement, engineering and education to achieve its aim of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on Dorset's roads, as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed."
Recent reports of road casualties in the Echo show that they are failing to meet this target. By targetting drivers at barely over the ACPO guideline of 10%+ 2mph at 5am it demonstrates clearly why they are failing.
The SCP said "The DSCP is focused on a combination of enforcement, engineering and education to achieve its aim of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on Dorset's roads, as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed."
Recent reports of road casualties in the Echo show that they are failing to meet this target. By targetting drivers at barely over the ACPO guideline of 10%+ 2mph at 5am it demonstrates clearly why they are failing.
Posted by: Paul, Bournemouth, Northbourne on 8:48am Sat 29 Mar 08
I have been in a similar situation. Was taking my daughter to hospital after she fractured her wrist. Initially I was given a speeding fine I contested and was let off.
I have been in a similar situation. Was taking my daughter to hospital after she fractured her wrist. Initially I was given a speeding fine I contested and was let off.
Posted by: 2Much, New Forest on 8:58am Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Paul, Bournemouth[/bold] wrote:
I have been in a similar situation. Was taking my daughter to hospital after she fractured her wrist. Initially I was given a speeding fine I contested and was let off.[/quote] Paul..out of interest..was that a camera that got you?
Paul, Bournemouth wrote:
I have been in a similar situation. Was taking my daughter to hospital after she fractured her wrist. Initially I was given a speeding fine I contested and was let off.
Paul..out of interest..was that a camera that got you?
Posted by: Benjamin, Hamworthy on 9:14am Sat 29 Mar 08
Most limits are too low for off peak hours. Before 5am is far removed from daytime traffic conditions. The problem today, is that the police can only opperate if there is a camera to do the job for them.
Most limits are too low for off peak hours. Before 5am is far removed from daytime traffic conditions. The problem today, is that the police can only opperate if there is a camera to do the job for them.
Posted by: Jerry, poole, dorset on 9:45am Sat 29 Mar 08
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at [bold]normal road speed[/bold] , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth.
Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour.
Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off.
Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"!
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at
normal road speed , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth.
Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour.
Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off.
Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"!
Posted by: PokesdownMark, Pokesdown on 9:48am Sat 29 Mar 08
In the circumstances and at that time of the day I would say 37mph was showing considerable constraint.
I wonder by Wimborne magistrates felt unable to do the right thing and throw the case out?
Pursuing this case is NOT in the public interest!
In the circumstances and at that time of the day I would say 37mph was showing considerable constraint.
I wonder by Wimborne magistrates felt unable to do the right thing and throw the case out?
Pursuing this case is NOT in the public interest!
Posted by: PokesdownMark, Pokesdown on 9:52am Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote]There was still an hour to spare before the birth.[/quote]
Jerry you are kidding right? You think arguing using the power of hindsight is adding anything to this?!
As for the rest of your comments, if he was driving at 50mph+ I would say you would have had a point. But he was doing 37! 37!!
There was still an hour to spare before the birth.
Jerry you are kidding right? You think arguing using the power of hindsight is adding anything to this?!
As for the rest of your comments, if he was driving at 50mph+ I would say you would have had a point. But he was doing 37! 37!!
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 9:56am Sat 29 Mar 08
Jerry, poole, dorset on 9:45am today
I fully agree with you, and would add that the difference between 30 and 37 is such that he could have easily done 30 and not really noticed the difference.
Chris said -
[quote] Although I have not been an angel when it comes to motoring offences, I thought that on this occasion common sense would prevail and that given a medical emergency the court would take this into consideration."[/quote]
Common sense would indicate that if it was an emergency then he should have called an ambulance.
If he has difficulty in obeying the law of the road then a retest should be ordered, before he causes an accident.
Jerry, poole, dorset on 9:45am today
I fully agree with you, and would add that the difference between 30 and 37 is such that he could have easily done 30 and not really noticed the difference.
Chris said -
Although I have not been an angel when it comes to motoring offences, I thought that on this occasion common sense would prevail and that given a medical emergency the court would take this into consideration."
Common sense would indicate that if it was an emergency then he should have called an ambulance.
If he has difficulty in obeying the law of the road then a retest should be ordered, before he causes an accident.
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 10:02am Sat 29 Mar 08
A constructive suggestion -
Chris, get yourself a Sat Nav. They warn you about speed monitoring points and mine has helped me on many occasions. They are superb.
Congratulations on fatherhood.
A constructive suggestion -
Chris, get yourself a Sat Nav. They warn you about speed monitoring points and mine has helped me on many occasions. They are superb.
Congratulations on fatherhood.
Posted by: Clarance, Bournemouth on 10:26am Sat 29 Mar 08
Echo short on news again? Is this really worthy of coverage on this system. The fact is that the person was sppeding. The mitigation will be proven or not and the case dismissed or dealt with. Not that newsworthy for heavens sake! Bit of red tabloid press here.
Echo short on news again? Is this really worthy of coverage on this system. The fact is that the person was sppeding. The mitigation will be proven or not and the case dismissed or dealt with. Not that newsworthy for heavens sake! Bit of red tabloid press here.
Posted by: Matthew, Bournemouth/Lancaste
r on 10:26am Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jerry[/bold] wrote:
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at [bold]normal road speed[/bold] , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth.
Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour.
Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off.
Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"![/quote] With all due respect, you are an idiot. Clearly you have swallowed the govts speed kills mantra without thinking about anything. Do you have any idea how many crashes are actually caused solely by speed? speed does not kill. Further it was 90 mins before the baby was born but the guy didn't know that, there wasnt a timer on his wifes forehead. Its people like you that are causing this country to go to pot, with your blind following of unnecessary regulation.
Jerry wrote:
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at normal road speed , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth.
Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour.
Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off.
Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"!
With all due respect, you are an idiot. Clearly you have swallowed the govts speed kills mantra without thinking about anything. Do you have any idea how many crashes are actually caused solely by speed? speed does not kill. Further it was 90 mins before the baby was born but the guy didn't know that, there wasnt a timer on his wifes forehead. Its people like you that are causing this country to go to pot, with your blind following of unnecessary regulation.
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 10:42am Sat 29 Mar 08
Matthew, Bournemouth/Lancaste r on 10:26am today
Speed does kill.
The timing between the contractions indicate the time of the actual birth.
It would seem that Chris already had a poor record for motoring, so this, as a repeat offence, would not be treat lightly.
A highly and carefully regulated life style is healthy and safe.
Matthew, Bournemouth/Lancaste r on 10:26am today
Speed does kill.
The timing between the contractions indicate the time of the actual birth.
It would seem that Chris already had a poor record for motoring, so this, as a repeat offence, would not be treat lightly.
A highly and carefully regulated life style is healthy and safe.
Posted by: PokesdownMark, Pokesdown on 10:45am Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Clarance[/bold] wrote:
Echo short on news again? Is this really worthy of coverage on this system. The fact is that the person was sppeding. The mitigation will be proven or not and the case dismissed or dealt with. Not that newsworthy for heavens sake! Bit of red tabloid press here.[/quote] I strongly disagree. Generally the echo does tend to be shallow in its coverage. (Where did that drug sniffing dog come from anyway?? retired custom dog? they cost tens of thousands to train you know.) But this story is certainly of interest. I have not heard of a driver in similar circumstances before - and wonder why not. It can't be something new. So I am very keen to follow this through the court system to see if common sense prevails.
Clarance wrote:
Echo short on news again? Is this really worthy of coverage on this system. The fact is that the person was sppeding. The mitigation will be proven or not and the case dismissed or dealt with. Not that newsworthy for heavens sake! Bit of red tabloid press here.
I strongly disagree. Generally the echo does tend to be shallow in its coverage. (Where did that drug sniffing dog come from anyway?? retired custom dog? they cost tens of thousands to train you know.) But this story is certainly of interest. I have not heard of a driver in similar circumstances before - and wonder why not. It can't be something new. So I am very keen to follow this through the court system to see if common sense prevails.
Posted by: oscar99, bournemouth on 10:59am Sat 29 Mar 08
if it was me i would have been doing double what he was doing
if it was me i would have been doing double what he was doing
Posted by: Puzzled, Poole on 11:04am Sat 29 Mar 08
If it was an emergency, why did he not either phone for an ambulance, or take her to Bournemouth Hospital? It's closer to where they live than Poole Hosp and could have saved vital minutes.
If it was an emergency, why did he not either phone for an ambulance, or take her to Bournemouth Hospital? It's closer to where they live than Poole Hosp and could have saved vital minutes.
Posted by: PokesdownMark, Pokesdown on 11:10am Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Puzzled[/bold] wrote:
If it was an emergency, why did he not either phone for an ambulance, or take her to Bournemouth Hospital? It's closer to where they live than Poole Hosp and could have saved vital minutes.
[/quote] Good questions.
Firstly it was not an emergency. It would have been socially irresponsible to tie up an ambulance. In fact ambulance control would likely have refused to send one.
Secondly, bournemouth hospital do not deal with tricky births or even first births (usually). So they would have been taken to Poole anyway.
Thirdly.... he was doing 37 people!!!! 37!!!!!!!!!
Puzzled wrote:
If it was an emergency, why did he not either phone for an ambulance, or take her to Bournemouth Hospital? It's closer to where they live than Poole Hosp and could have saved vital minutes.
Good questions.
Firstly it was not an emergency. It would have been socially irresponsible to tie up an ambulance. In fact ambulance control would likely have refused to send one.
Secondly, bournemouth hospital do not deal with tricky births or even first births (usually). So they would have been taken to Poole anyway.
Thirdly.... he was doing 37 people!!!! 37!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: oscar99, bournemouth on 11:41am Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Puzzled[/bold] wrote: If it was an emergency, why did he not either phone for an ambulance, or take her to Bournemouth Hospital? It's closer to where they live than Poole Hosp and could have saved vital minutes. [/quote] Good questions. Firstly it was not an emergency. It would have been socially irresponsible to tie up an ambulance. In fact ambulance control would likely have refused to send one. Secondly, bournemouth hospital do not deal with tricky births or even first births (usually). So they would have been taken to Poole anyway. Thirdly.... he was doing 37 people!!!! 37!!!!!!!!! [/quote] i used to work in ambulance control and yes an ambulance would have been sent 2nd bournemouth do deal with first births as my daughter was born there what happened is that they would have phoned poole hospital and they advised them to go there as it was choice of the parants as she may of oppted for pethodine which i belive that bournemouth dont do also at that time of the morning there is no : anesthetist on duty at that time if there was any problems .
PokesdownMark wrote:
Puzzled wrote: If it was an emergency, why did he not either phone for an ambulance, or take her to Bournemouth Hospital? It's closer to where they live than Poole Hosp and could have saved vital minutes.
Good questions. Firstly it was not an emergency. It would have been socially irresponsible to tie up an ambulance. In fact ambulance control would likely have refused to send one. Secondly, bournemouth hospital do not deal with tricky births or even first births (usually). So they would have been taken to Poole anyway. Thirdly.... he was doing 37 people!!!! 37!!!!!!!!!
i used to work in ambulance control and yes an ambulance would have been sent 2nd bournemouth do deal with first births as my daughter was born there what happened is that they would have phoned poole hospital and they advised them to go there as it was choice of the parants as she may of oppted for pethodine which i belive that bournemouth dont do also at that time of the morning there is no : anesthetist on duty at that time if there was any problems .
Posted by: godzilla, poole on 11:50am Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jerry[/bold] wrote:
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at [bold]normal road speed[/bold] , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth. Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour. Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off. Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"![/quote] how do you know have you had a baby! they only knew after the birth how long it took, my daughter recently gave birth left her house 7.10 am and the baby arrived at 8.12am they barely got to the hospital. I bet if he was a famous football manager and said he was speeding to get to a toilet he would be let off. I do not condone speeding at all but 37 is hardly that bad and if he felt it was safe to do that then what is the problem.
Jerry wrote:
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at normal road speed , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth. Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour. Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off. Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"!
how do you know have you had a baby! they only knew after the birth how long it took, my daughter recently gave birth left her house 7.10 am and the baby arrived at 8.12am they barely got to the hospital. I bet if he was a famous football manager and said he was speeding to get to a toilet he would be let off. I do not condone speeding at all but 37 is hardly that bad and if he felt it was safe to do that then what is the problem.
Posted by: Bigtone, Poole on 12:19pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 10:42am today
"A highly and carefully regulated life style is healthy and safe."
Tell that to the Russians and Chinese.The Romanians thought the same until they saw the light in 1989.Cant wait for the same to happen here.
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 10:42am today
"A highly and carefully regulated life style is healthy and safe."
Tell that to the Russians and Chinese.The Romanians thought the same until they saw the light in 1989.Cant wait for the same to happen here.
Posted by: Sarah, Bournemouth on 12:22pm Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jerry[/bold] wrote:
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at [bold]normal road speed[/bold] , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth. Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour. Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off. Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"![/quote] Climb off your high horse, for God's sake this man's wife was i labour - no one knows how long a labour will take and sometimes babies do surprise us and arrive in the car on the way to hospital. This man had a new baby and his wife to think about - leave him alone to enjoy the miracle, and let's all agree that he shouldn't pay the fine under these circumstances.
Jerry wrote:
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at normal road speed , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth. Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour. Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off. Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"!
Climb off your high horse, for God's sake this man's wife was i labour - no one knows how long a labour will take and sometimes babies do surprise us and arrive in the car on the way to hospital. This man had a new baby and his wife to think about - leave him alone to enjoy the miracle, and let's all agree that he shouldn't pay the fine under these circumstances.
Posted by: Joseph Lambert, Swanage on 12:24pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Slighty off topic, I was walking along Poole Quay a few years back and fell over, I was taken to hospital by ambulance and treated for a broken arm. When a friend picked my car up on the quay later that day, it had a parking ticket issued (time exceeded) I challengd the ticket but I stil had to pay. The end cost was £120
Slighty off topic, I was walking along Poole Quay a few years back and fell over, I was taken to hospital by ambulance and treated for a broken arm. When a friend picked my car up on the quay later that day, it had a parking ticket issued (time exceeded) I challengd the ticket but I stil had to pay. The end cost was £120
Posted by: Vikki27, Poole on 12:39pm Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jerry[/bold] wrote:
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at [bold]normal road speed[/bold] , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth.
Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour.
Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off.
Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"![/quote] Excuse me, please, but I find your opinion shortsighted and narrow minded.
Once a woman's water has broken and contractions start coming every 5-10 minutes, the baby could literally be born at any time. If he was breaking the speed limit by less than 10mph long before any real traffic starts and when there is VERY unlikely to be anyone crossing the road, I don't see why this cannot be dropped. I accept he broke the speed limit and that it was wrong, but for God's sake, it was an emergency!
Let's put it another way, if you were in a similar situation and didn't think you might make it in time, I strongly suspect you would do the same for someone you care a lot about.
In other word's, get over yourself and move on with your life!
Jerry wrote:
Ninety two minutes from leaving home at Ashley Heath, the baby was born? About 30 minutes drive at normal road speed , let alone speeding 'because he thought he could get away with it'. There was still an hour to spare before the birth.
Why not call an ambulance if you were so concerned about getting to the hospital in time? Had you any fears or concerns about the iminent birth, the hospital staff would have told you to call an ambulance when you phoned to tell them that your good lady was in labour.
Constitution Hill in Poole is an undulating residential road, with several bends and road junction (often with poor visibility). Had an accident occurred, not only could an innocent party have been injured or killed, you, your wife and/or your baby could have died. Think about the potential consequences of your actions, and don't expect to be let off.
Remember the slogans: "It's 30 for a reason"!
Excuse me, please, but I find your opinion shortsighted and narrow minded.
Once a woman's water has broken and contractions start coming every 5-10 minutes, the baby could literally be born at any time. If he was breaking the speed limit by less than 10mph long before any real traffic starts and when there is VERY unlikely to be anyone crossing the road, I don't see why this cannot be dropped. I accept he broke the speed limit and that it was wrong, but for God's sake, it was an emergency!
Let's put it another way, if you were in a similar situation and didn't think you might make it in time, I strongly suspect you would do the same for someone you care a lot about.
In other word's, get over yourself and move on with your life!
Posted by: Matt on 12:45pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Unfortunately nothing seems to get between the Police and their precious money and crime figures.
If I was the driver I’d have been doing a dam sight more than 37.
He’s not a doctor, he wouldn’t have known how long he had before the child arrived by timing the contractions.
Can’t the Police worry about catching real criminals for a change?
Unfortunately nothing seems to get between the Police and their precious money and crime figures.
If I was the driver I’d have been doing a dam sight more than 37.
He’s not a doctor, he wouldn’t have known how long he had before the child arrived by timing the contractions.
Can’t the Police worry about catching real criminals for a change?
Posted by: Insight, UK on 1:33pm Sat 29 Mar 08
If the magistrate doesn't have the wisdom to overturn a conviction like this, he (or she) and every member of camera partnerships, pro camera lobby and police force everywhere who can't see past there obsessive compulsive disorder in supporting speed cameras.
Should be removed from their posts until they can get a grasp on reality again.
It is immoral and disgusting to continue to prosecute a case like this and these people should be ashamed of themselves.
If the magistrate doesn't have the wisdom to overturn a conviction like this, he (or she) and every member of camera partnerships, pro camera lobby and police force everywhere who can't see past there obsessive compulsive disorder in supporting speed cameras.
Should be removed from their posts until they can get a grasp on reality again.
It is immoral and disgusting to continue to prosecute a case like this and these people should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Gastines, St.Malo ex Bournemouth on 1:41pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Please never assume there is a safe time to exceed the speed limit.I knew of someone who worked anti-social hours and lost his life due to someone speeding and not heeding road junction signs and that was some 25 plus years ago when there was much less traffic on the roads.
Please never assume there is a safe time to exceed the speed limit.I knew of someone who worked anti-social hours and lost his life due to someone speeding and not heeding road junction signs and that was some 25 plus years ago when there was much less traffic on the roads.
Posted by: Gastines, St.Malo ex Bournemouth on 1:42pm Sat 29 Mar 08
PS. this also happened at between 4am and 5am.
PS. this also happened at between 4am and 5am.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 1:56pm Sat 29 Mar 08
To be honest, it would've been nice to read that the magistrate had dismissed this case out of hand considering the circumstances and prove to the population that these speed camera obsessed people haven't lost sight of the purpose of their existence.
I wonder how much of our money they spend on public relations exercises every year only to blow it everytime they get an opportunity to prove they haven't lost sight of the reason for their existance.
Stupid, incompetent, short sighted, ignorant ...I could go on, but the remainder would be unsuitable for print.
To be honest, it would've been nice to read that the magistrate had dismissed this case out of hand considering the circumstances and prove to the population that these speed camera obsessed people haven't lost sight of the purpose of their existence.
I wonder how much of our money they spend on public relations exercises every year only to blow it everytime they get an opportunity to prove they haven't lost sight of the reason for their existance.
Stupid, incompetent, short sighted, ignorant ...I could go on, but the remainder would be unsuitable for print.
Posted by: angela, ferndown on 2:08pm Sat 29 Mar 08
3 years ago we were travelling to Poole Hospital at 2am and we only made it as far as the Alderney Roundabout when my baby started to come out. My husband had to stop and deliver him on the back seat. I'm pretty sure he had been speeding. In the urgency of the situation he used his judgement and that was to get me there as quickly as possible. I'm sure if the police had stopped us there and then they would have escorted us on a blue light.... Speeding.
3 years ago we were travelling to Poole Hospital at 2am and we only made it as far as the Alderney Roundabout when my baby started to come out. My husband had to stop and deliver him on the back seat. I'm pretty sure he had been speeding. In the urgency of the situation he used his judgement and that was to get me there as quickly as possible. I'm sure if the police had stopped us there and then they would have escorted us on a blue light.... Speeding.
Posted by: Insight, bucks on 2:13pm Sat 29 Mar 08
On the one hand, a banned motorcyclist who gets photographed speeding by the same camera 66 times at over double the speed limit on vehicles registered under false names and addresses gets nothing more than a suspended sentence, he isn't even banned. (BBC NEWS)
On the other hand, a driver with a pregnant woman in labour in the car at 37 mph.
Have you people totally lost any grip on reality?
There is no case to answer here, he showed remarkable restraint considering the circumstances and should be congratulated for his presence of mind, this should have been thrown out without even going to court.
You people who support speed cameras can't understand why the rest of the population have zero confidence in you, can you.
On the one hand, a banned motorcyclist who gets photographed speeding by the same camera 66 times at over double the speed limit on vehicles registered under false names and addresses gets nothing more than a suspended sentence, he isn't even banned. (BBC NEWS)
On the other hand, a driver with a pregnant woman in labour in the car at 37 mph.
Have you people totally lost any grip on reality?
There is no case to answer here, he showed remarkable restraint considering the circumstances and should be congratulated for his presence of mind, this should have been thrown out without even going to court.
You people who support speed cameras can't understand why the rest of the population have zero confidence in you, can you.
Posted by: Nick, Bournemouth on 2:19pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Obviously a highly emotive subject! It seems to be spit into two camps.
First of all, the all dreaded speed cameras.
Secondly, the question of a wife in labour.
My two- penny worth on the subject.
[bold]For me the most important is the state of mind of the driver at the time![/bold]
Speaking from experience. I believe that not enough information has been given in the article to make a rational decision.
For a first child contractions of 3 minutes can still mean a 24 hour labour period ahead. But for my child No. 3 it took 8 minutes from start of the 3 minute contractions to the birth [italic](which I did myself as no-one arrived in time). [/italic]
I was faced with a similar situation myself. I’ve driven 2 hours along a Motorway while drunk when my 1st wife was rushed to hospital with a life threatening disease. ([italic]It would have taken 4 hours longer in a train). [/italic] But I got to see her before she died. It may not have been the “correct” thing to do but she was away visiting her mother at the time and I had been in the Corporal’s Club all evening at a Regimental Dinner. So, not the legal thing to do but, perhaps the most morally correct?
[bold]Of course if I had caused a death but being unfit to drive it would have been all my fault, but at that time I would have accepted that.[/bold] So do I understand the mindset of why anyone would speed at this time.
Speed cameras are another issue, I doubt if anyone actually loves them but they still work out cheaper than an extra 6 Traffic Cars on the road. Plus they are self sustaining and already in place. In 2006 the cameras in Dorset made only £14,000 profit. (Google it if you don’t believe me).
Buy the way, cameras are not run by the police. According to an article in the Echo last year, it costs the police £75 to issue a ticket. So for every £60 ticket issued, the tax payer pays £15. So the tax payer still pays for the speeding offences of others.
But the correct way to deal with a ticket incorrectly issued is to contest it. The system is in place to do just that and if the Magistrate accepts that you have a “Reasonable Excuse” you will be let off.
The headline "It's 30 for a reason" has a place here too. For the last 30 years car manufacturers have had to make their cars safer for the set national speed limit. It does not mean that it is the correct limit for that time and place; it means it is the “Legal Limit”.
Obviously a highly emotive subject! It seems to be spit into two camps.
First of all, the all dreaded speed cameras.
Secondly, the question of a wife in labour.
My two- penny worth on the subject.
For me the most important is the state of mind of the driver at the time!
Speaking from experience. I believe that not enough information has been given in the article to make a rational decision.
For a first child contractions of 3 minutes can still mean a 24 hour labour period ahead. But for my child No. 3 it took 8 minutes from start of the 3 minute contractions to the birth
(which I did myself as no-one arrived in time).
I was faced with a similar situation myself. I’ve driven 2 hours along a Motorway while drunk when my 1st wife was rushed to hospital with a life threatening disease. (
It would have taken 4 hours longer in a train). But I got to see her before she died. It may not have been the “correct” thing to do but she was away visiting her mother at the time and I had been in the Corporal’s Club all evening at a Regimental Dinner. So, not the legal thing to do but, perhaps the most morally correct?
Of course if I had caused a death but being unfit to drive it would have been all my fault, but at that time I would have accepted that. So do I understand the mindset of why anyone would speed at this time.
Speed cameras are another issue, I doubt if anyone actually loves them but they still work out cheaper than an extra 6 Traffic Cars on the road. Plus they are self sustaining and already in place. In 2006 the cameras in Dorset made only £14,000 profit. (Google it if you don’t believe me).
Buy the way, cameras are not run by the police. According to an article in the Echo last year, it costs the police £75 to issue a ticket. So for every £60 ticket issued, the tax payer pays £15. So the tax payer still pays for the speeding offences of others.
But the correct way to deal with a ticket incorrectly issued is to contest it. The system is in place to do just that and if the Magistrate accepts that you have a “Reasonable Excuse” you will be let off.
The headline "It's 30 for a reason" has a place here too. For the last 30 years car manufacturers have had to make their cars safer for the set national speed limit. It does not mean that it is the correct limit for that time and place; it means it is the “Legal Limit”.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 2:21pm Sat 29 Mar 08
I just drew a sharp intake of breath and became embaressed because I realised this must be an april fool story.
If it is, I appologise, because it's obvious no one with the training, experience and authority to keep our roads safe could be this stupid.
I just drew a sharp intake of breath and became embaressed because I realised this must be an april fool story.
If it is, I appologise, because it's obvious no one with the training, experience and authority to keep our roads safe could be this stupid.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 2:32pm Sat 29 Mar 08
I believe you Nick, but I wouldn't agree about the value for money concept, across the country speed cameras took over a hundred million pounds 2006 to 2007 it also cost nearly as much to run them.
So let me remind everyone,
1 Antique GATSO = 3 existing Real Police cars armed with ANPR putting real officers back on the streets more cost effectively than cameras.
The days where it's 'speed cameras or nothing' have gone, it's time to get a grip and disband these partnerships and their wasteful greedy parasitic sub organisations.
Real police patrols could be back on the streets cheaper than cameras right now.
Casualties since speed cameras are not 'down' they are 'up' and to top it all, they're so incompetant that they haven't got the wisdom to see that a man with a pregnant wife in labour in a car at 37 mph is a man showing remarkable restraint behind the wheel and should be congratulated.
I believe you Nick, but I wouldn't agree about the value for money concept, across the country speed cameras took over a hundred million pounds 2006 to 2007 it also cost nearly as much to run them.
So let me remind everyone,
1 Antique GATSO = 3 existing Real Police cars armed with ANPR putting real officers back on the streets more cost effectively than cameras.
The days where it's 'speed cameras or nothing' have gone, it's time to get a grip and disband these partnerships and their wasteful greedy parasitic sub organisations.
Real police patrols could be back on the streets cheaper than cameras right now.
Casualties since speed cameras are not 'down' they are 'up' and to top it all, they're so incompetant that they haven't got the wisdom to see that a man with a pregnant wife in labour in a car at 37 mph is a man showing remarkable restraint behind the wheel and should be congratulated.
Posted by: rayc, Poole on 2:50pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Nick, with regards to your comments:
" In 2006 the cameras in Dorset made only £14,000 profit".
This was in the days when the Partnership costs were paid for from the Fixed Penalty income. They were not alone in feathering their own nests. Look at the accounts and see some of the costs that were claimed.
"Buy the way, cameras are not run by the police".
The vans have 'Police' written on them and the Fixed Penalty Notices are issued in the name of the Chief Constable. They can only exist with the authority of the Police. All the other members of the Partnership have minimal influence in comparison.
Nick, with regards to your comments:
" In 2006 the cameras in Dorset made only £14,000 profit".
This was in the days when the Partnership costs were paid for from the Fixed Penalty income. They were not alone in feathering their own nests. Look at the accounts and see some of the costs that were claimed.
"Buy the way, cameras are not run by the police".
The vans have 'Police' written on them and the Fixed Penalty Notices are issued in the name of the Chief Constable. They can only exist with the authority of the Police. All the other members of the Partnership have minimal influence in comparison.
Posted by: Nick, Bournemouth on 2:56pm Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote]1 Antique GATSO = 3 existing Real Police cars armed with ANPR putting real officers back on the streets more cost effectively than cameras.[/quote]
Sorry. I have too disagree there. The situation and the math do not work.
Traffic Cars are maxed out already. People say put more cars on the road but they are not normal cars. A normal patrol car is a 1.6 diesel Focus. It will not catch a fast car who will try to get away. Most traffic cars are designed to be fast, most forces go for Beamers.
(I’ll point out that I am not a camera fan but lets do the Math.)
So you will need: 1x fast beamer, 1xAPNR system and 6 coppers (3 shifts) on a year per car. + one or more sergeants as a squad leader. All this information is available on the internet.
Once bought and fitted out we need to look at maintenance and repairs too, say one accident per 2 cars (including PITs ). What do you make that?
I still think it is cheaper to put a digital camera with Wifi in an old Gasto!
1 Antique GATSO = 3 existing Real Police cars armed with ANPR putting real officers back on the streets more cost effectively than cameras.
Sorry. I have too disagree there. The situation and the math do not work.
Traffic Cars are maxed out already. People say put more cars on the road but they are not normal cars. A normal patrol car is a 1.6 diesel Focus. It will not catch a fast car who will try to get away. Most traffic cars are designed to be fast, most forces go for Beamers.
(I’ll point out that I am not a camera fan but lets do the Math.)
So you will need: 1x fast beamer, 1xAPNR system and 6 coppers (3 shifts) on a year per car. + one or more sergeants as a squad leader. All this information is available on the internet.
Once bought and fitted out we need to look at maintenance and repairs too, say one accident per 2 cars (including PITs ). What do you make that?
I still think it is cheaper to put a digital camera with Wifi in an old Gasto!
Posted by: Nick, Bournemouth on 3:09pm Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote]Buy the way, cameras are not run by the police".
The vans have 'Police' written on them and the Fixed Penalty Notices are issued in the name of the Chief Constable.[/quote]
This is going way off topic but I will answer.
Yes they do have “Police” on them but no blue lights. So they have the authority. You see many vans with “Economy Hire” marked on them too. This does mot mean that the “Economy Hire” supplies the driver.
The ticket is issued under contract with the police. You don’t often get the chief constable out there with a camera gun in his hand for the police issued tickets either.
Buy the way, cameras are not run by the police".
The vans have 'Police' written on them and the Fixed Penalty Notices are issued in the name of the Chief Constable.
This is going way off topic but I will answer.
Yes they do have “Police” on them but no blue lights. So they have the authority. You see many vans with “Economy Hire” marked on them too. This does mot mean that the “Economy Hire” supplies the driver.
The ticket is issued under contract with the police. You don’t often get the chief constable out there with a camera gun in his hand for the police issued tickets either.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 3:21pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Just one Motorcyclist using false plates, four years to catch and a six figure sum in police man hours, return, zero.
Increased fatalities caused by drunk drivers in hit and run accidents costing authority 1.4 million pounds each.
As reported on Sky News, an epedemic of illegal driving on Britains roads in the last five to ten years (they stopped just short of saying 'since speed cameras') millions of pounds in tax avoidance, stolen vehicles and unpaid fines.
An Increase in casualties on Britains roads inspite of safety driven improvements in vehicle design since the arrival of speed cameras when the previous trend was a decline year on year.
***
One digital camera with wifi, disabled with a B&Q match pot ...priceless.
I don't think your argument stands up nick, whatever form of enforcment exists it's going to cost a lot of money, but the reasonable people among us would choose the one that works.
Just one Motorcyclist using false plates, four years to catch and a six figure sum in police man hours, return, zero.
Increased fatalities caused by drunk drivers in hit and run accidents costing authority 1.4 million pounds each.
As reported on Sky News, an epedemic of illegal driving on Britains roads in the last five to ten years (they stopped just short of saying 'since speed cameras') millions of pounds in tax avoidance, stolen vehicles and unpaid fines.
An Increase in casualties on Britains roads inspite of safety driven improvements in vehicle design since the arrival of speed cameras when the previous trend was a decline year on year.
***
One digital camera with wifi, disabled with a B&Q match pot ...priceless.
I don't think your argument stands up nick, whatever form of enforcment exists it's going to cost a lot of money, but the reasonable people among us would choose the one that works.
Posted by: Nick, Bournemouth on 3:28pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Currently none works. This is not due to enforcement. This is due to the drivers.
It is a mindset that everyone gets once they climb into a car / get on a motorbike! I can so I will is the Motto. Take no prisoners is the Mode.
Make it change yourself. Smile and wave to the driver next to you, or let someone out of a side road with a huge wave.
The law is how it should be, not how it is!
Currently none works. This is not due to enforcement. This is due to the drivers.
It is a mindset that everyone gets once they climb into a car / get on a motorbike! I can so I will is the Motto. Take no prisoners is the Mode.
Make it change yourself. Smile and wave to the driver next to you, or let someone out of a side road with a huge wave.
The law is how it should be, not how it is!
Posted by: fedupwithjobsworths, Moordown on 3:31pm Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote][bold]2Much[/bold] wrote:
This is why cameras do not work...had that been a copper sat with a gun..the couple would have got a police escort to hospital. Cameras can't judge things like this..now this guy has to take numerous days of work while the courts get their act together...and we, the tax payer, are footing the bill![/quote] You have hit the nail on the head. This is just another example of modern day Jobsworth Britain - common sense has been banished. Instead of a Police escort we have Camera "Partnerships" and two court hearings - what a waste of our money.
2Much wrote:
This is why cameras do not work...had that been a copper sat with a gun..the couple would have got a police escort to hospital. Cameras can't judge things like this..now this guy has to take numerous days of work while the courts get their act together...and we, the tax payer, are footing the bill!
You have hit the nail on the head. This is just another example of modern day Jobsworth Britain - common sense has been banished. Instead of a Police escort we have Camera "Partnerships" and two court hearings - what a waste of our money.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 3:36pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Oh by the way, you allowed for six officers per vehicle, change that to three to cover shifts, as the americans only use one officer per vehicle because there is virtually no need for the operator to take his eyes from the road as a properly equiped ANPR does all what the second officer used to do and uses audio prompts to alert the driver.
Also, why do you need to have every car a BMW pursuit car? that is illogical as only a small percentage of traffic offences turn into highspeed motorway pursuits.
Besides, if a 3 litre BMW is required to catch offenders, how big an engine would you have to put in a speed camera to do the same job?
As for mobile speed camera vans, you already have the cost of the operator to offset against a real police officers pay and ANPR is so far proving to be reliable, where as right across the country and as recently as last weekend, mobile speed camera convictions are being overturned due to operator incompetence.
Speed cameras don't add up anymore and have been an expensive mistake ..although, I'll wager the MD of the company that makes them and pays for council leaders to have a holiday abroad would argue the point.
Oh by the way, you allowed for six officers per vehicle, change that to three to cover shifts, as the americans only use one officer per vehicle because there is virtually no need for the operator to take his eyes from the road as a properly equiped ANPR does all what the second officer used to do and uses audio prompts to alert the driver.
Also, why do you need to have every car a BMW pursuit car? that is illogical as only a small percentage of traffic offences turn into highspeed motorway pursuits.
Besides, if a 3 litre BMW is required to catch offenders, how big an engine would you have to put in a speed camera to do the same job?
As for mobile speed camera vans, you already have the cost of the operator to offset against a real police officers pay and ANPR is so far proving to be reliable, where as right across the country and as recently as last weekend, mobile speed camera convictions are being overturned due to operator incompetence.
Speed cameras don't add up anymore and have been an expensive mistake ..although, I'll wager the MD of the company that makes them and pays for council leaders to have a holiday abroad would argue the point.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 3:43pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Some constabularys have the right idea, they take their allowances for road safety initiatives and use technology wisely, such as the one thats just initiated a programme of miniture cameras in police motorcyclists helmets which can be replayed to offenders on capture and if necessary used in court.
Much more effective than a pointless polaroid on a pole with lump of sticky tape in front of its lens, wouldn't you say?
Some constabularys have the right idea, they take their allowances for road safety initiatives and use technology wisely, such as the one thats just initiated a programme of miniture cameras in police motorcyclists helmets which can be replayed to offenders on capture and if necessary used in court.
Much more effective than a pointless polaroid on a pole with lump of sticky tape in front of its lens, wouldn't you say?
Posted by: Nick, Bournemouth on 3:46pm Sat 29 Mar 08
As I have suggested in the forum. No amount of legislation will improve the standards of driving if the people do not want to do it themselves.
What is the point of selling a 240MPH car in a land where you can only do 70MPH. If you put temptation in someone’s way they will be tempted to try it!
For me the only way is to speed limit the cars. With today’s technology there MUST be a way of automatically restricting the speed for the area.
Think of it, in one go no more Gatsos and no more Traffic Cops.
Surely that is a better way?
[quote]how big an engine would you have to put in a speed camera to do the same job?[/quote]
None, they do not move!
[quote]change that to three to cover shifts, as the americans only use one officer[/quote]
Would not work here. A copper needs evidence that they are telling the truth. CPS would throw it out otherwise. :-)
As I have suggested in the forum. No amount of legislation will improve the standards of driving if the people do not want to do it themselves.
What is the point of selling a 240MPH car in a land where you can only do 70MPH. If you put temptation in someone’s way they will be tempted to try it!
For me the only way is to speed limit the cars. With today’s technology there MUST be a way of automatically restricting the speed for the area.
Think of it, in one go no more Gatsos and no more Traffic Cops.
Surely that is a better way?
how big an engine would you have to put in a speed camera to do the same job?
None, they do not move!
change that to three to cover shifts, as the americans only use one officer
Would not work here. A copper needs evidence that they are telling the truth. CPS would throw it out otherwise. :-)
Posted by: Insight, UK on 3:52pm Sat 29 Mar 08
and I do take offence at the comment 'it is the mindset of drivers'
Do you mean all drivers? ...every single one of us? ..even the ones with clean licenses and full no claims bonuses? ...who've never had convictions or accidents and respect the law?
Is every single driver on the road a menace? or just a minority of people prepared to use any means to avoid capture that is getting all of us a bad name just because speed cameras can't catch the real offenders and to justify their presence they have to prosecute expectant fathers and women in labour traveling marginally over an arbitrary limit.
If you were to tell this story to people sixty or seventy years ago of what was going to happen in the future, they'd be appalled, it is disgusting and immoral.
and I do take offence at the comment 'it is the mindset of drivers'
Do you mean all drivers? ...every single one of us? ..even the ones with clean licenses and full no claims bonuses? ...who've never had convictions or accidents and respect the law?
Is every single driver on the road a menace? or just a minority of people prepared to use any means to avoid capture that is getting all of us a bad name just because speed cameras can't catch the real offenders and to justify their presence they have to prosecute expectant fathers and women in labour traveling marginally over an arbitrary limit.
If you were to tell this story to people sixty or seventy years ago of what was going to happen in the future, they'd be appalled, it is disgusting and immoral.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 3:58pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Restriction of vehicles was tried in the moped days, it simply resulted in big sales of unrestricting parts and allowed offenders to get away with clear transgressions because their vehicles weren't capable of the offence they were accused of.
That would be even simpler to do today, as without the vehicle being stopped, any non restrictive parts could be removed once a Notice of Intended Prosecution hits the offenders door mat.
Restriction of vehicles was tried in the moped days, it simply resulted in big sales of unrestricting parts and allowed offenders to get away with clear transgressions because their vehicles weren't capable of the offence they were accused of.
That would be even simpler to do today, as without the vehicle being stopped, any non restrictive parts could be removed once a Notice of Intended Prosecution hits the offenders door mat.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 4:07pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Also, as I work in IT, the very concept of wi fi being used for speed cameras is very alarming, because I won't even use a wi fi connection to log onto my bank account because it is so vulnerable to attack, I'll only use a fully wire connection and even then I make sure the system is clean before doing it.
Or haven't the government learnt about how valuable yet vulnerable digital data is from their exploits loosing a couple of CD's at HMRC.
Also, as I work in IT, the very concept of wi fi being used for speed cameras is very alarming, because I won't even use a wi fi connection to log onto my bank account because it is so vulnerable to attack, I'll only use a fully wire connection and even then I make sure the system is clean before doing it.
Or haven't the government learnt about how valuable yet vulnerable digital data is from their exploits loosing a couple of CD's at HMRC.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 4:18pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Oh!! ...lets install digital devices into all vehicles so that we can monitor everyone and keep them under control!! ..yeah, excellent idea, ..whooopie!! we're so clever!
Several months later :- Hacking ring responsible for road pricing fraud, millions of pounds of tax payers money wasted on vulnerable system, Alistair Darling forced into the court yard of westminster and pelted with eggs.
Get a grip, we had a system that worked and it worked very well and was the envy of the world, now it is a shambolic nonsense.
Oh!! ...lets install digital devices into all vehicles so that we can monitor everyone and keep them under control!! ..yeah, excellent idea, ..whooopie!! we're so clever!
Several months later :- Hacking ring responsible for road pricing fraud, millions of pounds of tax payers money wasted on vulnerable system, Alistair Darling forced into the court yard of westminster and pelted with eggs.
Get a grip, we had a system that worked and it worked very well and was the envy of the world, now it is a shambolic nonsense.
Posted by: Nick, Bournemouth on 4:31pm Sat 29 Mar 08
This is way off topic. :-(
[quote]Also, as I work in IT, the very concept of wi fi being used for speed cameras is very alarming, because I won't even use a wi fi connection to log onto my bank account because it is so vulnerable to attack, I'll only use a fully wire connection and even then I make sure the system is clean before doing it.[/quote]
Being a qualified IT Systems Electrician myself I see your point. But here it is NOT the Wifi at fault but the internet. It is possible to capture internet packets as they travel. The USA security services do it all the time!
[quote]Get a grip, we had a system that worked and it worked very well and was the envy of the world, now it is a shambolic nonsense.[/quote]
That was before the EU and human rights though.
This is way off topic. :-(
Also, as I work in IT, the very concept of wi fi being used for speed cameras is very alarming, because I won't even use a wi fi connection to log onto my bank account because it is so vulnerable to attack, I'll only use a fully wire connection and even then I make sure the system is clean before doing it.
Being a qualified IT Systems Electrician myself I see your point. But here it is NOT the Wifi at fault but the internet. It is possible to capture internet packets as they travel. The USA security services do it all the time!
Get a grip, we had a system that worked and it worked very well and was the envy of the world, now it is a shambolic nonsense.
That was before the EU and human rights though.
Posted by: Nick, Bournemouth on 4:43pm Sat 29 Mar 08
[quote]Do you mean all drivers? ...every single one of us? ..even the ones with clean licenses and full no claims bonuses? ...who've never had convictions or accidents and respect the law?[/quote]
Yes.
When was the last time you read the highway code? Did you know that a new one is in force?
How many drivers have the curtsy of telling you where they are going?. (I.e. Indicators at Roundabouts).
How many drivers will wait instead of just pushing in on a junction?
How many drivers indicate then brake at a turning (instead of the other way round)?
How many drivers do you see using their Mobile Phones?
It may not be you personally of course, but how many?
Do you mean all drivers? ...every single one of us? ..even the ones with clean licenses and full no claims bonuses? ...who've never had convictions or accidents and respect the law?
Yes.
When was the last time you read the highway code? Did you know that a new one is in force?
How many drivers have the curtsy of telling you where they are going?. (I.e. Indicators at Roundabouts).
How many drivers will wait instead of just pushing in on a junction?
How many drivers indicate then brake at a turning (instead of the other way round)?
How many drivers do you see using their Mobile Phones?
It may not be you personally of course, but how many?
Posted by: John Goodhew on 4:47pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Speed camera's, yer buy a sat nav system they are wonderful, they tell you where all or at least most camera's are, congrats.
Speed camera's, yer buy a sat nav system they are wonderful, they tell you where all or at least most camera's are, congrats.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 5:17pm Sat 29 Mar 08
I've read 'some' I'll admit not every page of the new highway code quite recently we have one in the office.
But how is driver courtesy, indicators, etiquette at junctions, brake lights and mobile phones even relevant to speed cameras, even camera partnerships aren't daft enough to make any claim to improve those.
Infact the only claim I can see the partnerships making is that they say cameras reduce collisions at camera sites after installation, which is hardly surprising when an anomalously high accident rate at that site has to occur before one is even installed.
These higher statistics are far easier explained by deterioration of road surface and the effect on doubling stopping distances even at the legal speed of the road, lining, lighting or inadequate street furniture than by the sudden appearance of a camera, as the governments own figures show a camera can reduce accident at the site they're standing by as little as 10%, whereas resurfacing a road and all the white lines, lighting and signs reduces accidents by 35%.
How any of this is relevant to prosecuting an expectant father with a wife in labour in the passenger seat at 37 is getting a bit beyond me.
It is wrong, he's shown he's aware of the danger by keeping his speed down and a conviction would be immoral.
What would the nation say if the headline read 'Wife in labour and unborn baby dies because Father refused to break the speed limit' and don't give me any of that 'benefit of hind sight nonsense' the child comes first and this guy even showed restraint by keeping his speed down.
I really do despise the obsessive comments of idiotic people who lose sight of whats important in their quest to change the behaviour of a miniority of inconsiderate drivers by trying to apply some draconian law strewn with holes of inadequacy and incompetence to everyone.
It is absurd, immorral and I think that all you people who've maintained criticism of this guy should hang your heads in shame.
I've read 'some' I'll admit not every page of the new highway code quite recently we have one in the office.
But how is driver courtesy, indicators, etiquette at junctions, brake lights and mobile phones even relevant to speed cameras, even camera partnerships aren't daft enough to make any claim to improve those.
Infact the only claim I can see the partnerships making is that they say cameras reduce collisions at camera sites after installation, which is hardly surprising when an anomalously high accident rate at that site has to occur before one is even installed.
These higher statistics are far easier explained by deterioration of road surface and the effect on doubling stopping distances even at the legal speed of the road, lining, lighting or inadequate street furniture than by the sudden appearance of a camera, as the governments own figures show a camera can reduce accident at the site they're standing by as little as 10%, whereas resurfacing a road and all the white lines, lighting and signs reduces accidents by 35%.
How any of this is relevant to prosecuting an expectant father with a wife in labour in the passenger seat at 37 is getting a bit beyond me.
It is wrong, he's shown he's aware of the danger by keeping his speed down and a conviction would be immoral.
What would the nation say if the headline read 'Wife in labour and unborn baby dies because Father refused to break the speed limit' and don't give me any of that 'benefit of hind sight nonsense' the child comes first and this guy even showed restraint by keeping his speed down.
I really do despise the obsessive comments of idiotic people who lose sight of whats important in their quest to change the behaviour of a miniority of inconsiderate drivers by trying to apply some draconian law strewn with holes of inadequacy and incompetence to everyone.
It is absurd, immorral and I think that all you people who've maintained criticism of this guy should hang your heads in shame.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 5:39pm Sat 29 Mar 08
By the way, I think if this guy does get convicted due to the obsessional behaviour of the self appointed 'righteous' who clearly can't see how much this country has deteriorated since they were allowed to start having any say in road safety policy and continue to do so, even those casualty rates stubbornly refuse to go down, considering that he has a new baby, those of us who don't agree with whats going on here should have a whip round and pay it for him.
By the way, I think if this guy does get convicted due to the obsessional behaviour of the self appointed 'righteous' who clearly can't see how much this country has deteriorated since they were allowed to start having any say in road safety policy and continue to do so, even those casualty rates stubbornly refuse to go down, considering that he has a new baby, those of us who don't agree with whats going on here should have a whip round and pay it for him.
Posted by: Vikki27, Poole on 5:47pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Firstly, I find that the people who make a really big fuss about speed cameras are usually the ones who prefer to go above the speed limit and don't like the possibility of being caught by one. Frankly, I have almost never broken the speed limit and I don't care whether they are there or not! If you're so annoyed at the prospect of being caught by one, the answer couldn't be simpler - DON'T break the speed limit!! The only exception to the rule should be in emergency situations, such as a wife in labour!!!
And I would just like to add my complete endorsement of the idea mentioned above. If you don't like the behaviour of other people on the road, the best thing you can do is not join them!! Be polite and courteous to all you encounter on the road. Give people a smile and let them have the right of way instead of rampaging through, deciding they can just wait for you. Show kindness and courtesy and if everyone else did the same, we wouldn't have some of the horrible road-related problems we have today.
Firstly, I find that the people who make a really big fuss about speed cameras are usually the ones who prefer to go above the speed limit and don't like the possibility of being caught by one. Frankly, I have almost never broken the speed limit and I don't care whether they are there or not! If you're so annoyed at the prospect of being caught by one, the answer couldn't be simpler - DON'T break the speed limit!! The only exception to the rule should be in emergency situations, such as a wife in labour!!!
And I would just like to add my complete endorsement of the idea mentioned above. If you don't like the behaviour of other people on the road, the best thing you can do is not join them!! Be polite and courteous to all you encounter on the road. Give people a smile and let them have the right of way instead of rampaging through, deciding they can just wait for you. Show kindness and courtesy and if everyone else did the same, we wouldn't have some of the horrible road-related problems we have today.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 5:57pm Sat 29 Mar 08
I don't agree with vikki27 on her point that the only people who criticise speed cameras are those who want to speed, that is a well rehearsed piece of propaganda used by the speed camera people which is wearing quite thin and becoming quite tiresome especially as it isn't true.
They're being critiscised from all angles these days. Because since speed cameras arrived, government in their wisdom have neglected to provide targets and funding for casualty reduction to real police officers, prefering to put money into reducing thefts of KitKatts. (not my words, the kitkatt statement is that of a former ACPO)
I do agree that there should be clear exceptions and an understanding of emergency situations, as I'm reasonably sure that going out and finding a pregnant women in labour just so that you can go on a speed fueled jolly around the county is more than a little impractical for your average petrol head.
and I do approve and also add my endorsment to her notion of improving driver behaviour by improving your own.
I don't agree with vikki27 on her point that the only people who criticise speed cameras are those who want to speed, that is a well rehearsed piece of propaganda used by the speed camera people which is wearing quite thin and becoming quite tiresome especially as it isn't true.
They're being critiscised from all angles these days. Because since speed cameras arrived, government in their wisdom have neglected to provide targets and funding for casualty reduction to real police officers, prefering to put money into reducing thefts of KitKatts. (not my words, the kitkatt statement is that of a former ACPO)
I do agree that there should be clear exceptions and an understanding of emergency situations, as I'm reasonably sure that going out and finding a pregnant women in labour just so that you can go on a speed fueled jolly around the county is more than a little impractical for your average petrol head.
and I do approve and also add my endorsment to her notion of improving driver behaviour by improving your own.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 6:00pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Sorry, typo, that should have been Cheif Police Officer, CPO, not the entire Association.
Sorry, typo, that should have been Cheif Police Officer, CPO, not the entire Association.
Posted by: samizwikid, ferndown on 6:10pm Sat 29 Mar 08
evenin... nt bein funny or anythin but cmon if u checked speeds of most cars they are probz speedin 70% of the time anyway... nice drivin by the way hope all goes well with ur new kid nd everythin. i would of done the same thing by the time the ambulance got to u, u would have been there... so leave it out yh.
evenin... nt bein funny or anythin but cmon if u checked speeds of most cars they are probz speedin 70% of the time anyway... nice drivin by the way hope all goes well with ur new kid nd everythin. i would of done the same thing by the time the ambulance got to u, u would have been there... so leave it out yh.
Posted by: chris30, Ringwood on 6:43pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Thanks for all of your comments on this subject. My case is being heard again in April, so as not to prejudice the outcome I will not respond to any of your specific comments. Hopefully this will get resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
Thanks for all of your comments on this subject. My case is being heard again in April, so as not to prejudice the outcome I will not respond to any of your specific comments. Hopefully this will get resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
Posted by: PokesdownMark, Pokesdown on 7:48pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Cheers chris30... hopefully common sense will prevail. I think its a disgrace that you've had to have the case taken this far. Good luck to you sir!
Cheers chris30... hopefully common sense will prevail. I think its a disgrace that you've had to have the case taken this far. Good luck to you sir!
Posted by: Insight, UK on 7:59pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Yeah, they're likely to punish you really heavy Chris, lock you up and throw away the key, just so they stop the imminant clear and present danger of the kidnapping and marrying of millions of pregnant women in labour by all those crazy drivers of family cars who won't have an excuse to go speeding anymore, because of the clear superior inteligence and foresighted wisdom of road law makers in this country today.
That'll learn you for getting your wife pregnant eh?
haven't got an excuse to break the speed limit
Yeah, they're likely to punish you really heavy Chris, lock you up and throw away the key, just so they stop the imminant clear and present danger of the kidnapping and marrying of millions of pregnant women in labour by all those crazy drivers of family cars who won't have an excuse to go speeding anymore, because of the clear superior inteligence and foresighted wisdom of road law makers in this country today.
That'll learn you for getting your wife pregnant eh?
haven't got an excuse to break the speed limit
Posted by: Garyt, Daventry on 9:33pm Sat 29 Mar 08
I had a similar experience nearly 20 years ago when driving my wife to Poole Hospital in labour with one of our children at about 04.30 one morning. In my case I was stopped by a police vehicle. I expected to get the blue light treatment to the maternity unit, but instead had to stand waiting while the officer in question wrote out a ticket while my wifes contractions kept coming ever more frequently.
Sometimes the law is an ****!
I had a similar experience nearly 20 years ago when driving my wife to Poole Hospital in labour with one of our children at about 04.30 one morning. In my case I was stopped by a police vehicle. I expected to get the blue light treatment to the maternity unit, but instead had to stand waiting while the officer in question wrote out a ticket while my wifes contractions kept coming ever more frequently.
Sometimes the law is an ****!
Posted by: missy, poole on 11:10pm Sat 29 Mar 08
Do you know what is like to have a baby bouncing around when your water's have broken!!?? He could have been doing 67mph but i bet his wife would have still thought he was going too slow.
LEAVE HIM ALONE he was excited, panicing,worried, his wife was just about to have his baby.
Do you know what is like to have a baby bouncing around when your water's have broken!!?? He could have been doing 67mph but i bet his wife would have still thought he was going too slow.
LEAVE HIM ALONE he was excited, panicing,worried, his wife was just about to have his baby.
Posted by: Nigel Blumenthal, not in your car, on 5:24am Sun 30 Mar 08
Response to HAL101:
Sorry, but speed does not kill.
Inappropriate speed may kill. 28 mph past a school at 3:30pm may be highly dangerous, although (mostly) legal.
85 mph on a well-lit motorway at 2:00 am is not in itself dangerous (unless of course, you've been drinking, but that's another issue).
Speed cameras are just dumb computers that would not ticket the first driver, but would ticket the second one.
The whole "speed kills" mantra, by which you've clearly been landed, hook line and sinker, is designed to appeal to the simple-minded jerk who hasn't got enough brain cells to reason an argument. Reminds me of the line from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where they're looking at replacing Arthur Dent's brain. "A simple one should do," the line goes. "All it needs to do is say "What", and "I want a cup of tea."
Brains on that level respond well to simple statements like "Speed kills". More advanced life-forms usually question these blanket statements.
BTW, chris30, congratulations on the baby - even if they are a bit late. There was a speed limit on the congratulations highway into town!
Response to HAL101:
Sorry, but speed does not kill.
Inappropriate speed may kill. 28 mph past a school at 3:30pm may be highly dangerous, although (mostly) legal.
85 mph on a well-lit motorway at 2:00 am is not in itself dangerous (unless of course, you've been drinking, but that's another issue).
Speed cameras are just dumb computers that would not ticket the first driver, but would ticket the second one.
The whole "speed kills" mantra, by which you've clearly been landed, hook line and sinker, is designed to appeal to the simple-minded jerk who hasn't got enough brain cells to reason an argument. Reminds me of the line from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where they're looking at replacing Arthur Dent's brain. "A simple one should do," the line goes. "All it needs to do is say "What", and "I want a cup of tea."
Brains on that level respond well to simple statements like "Speed kills". More advanced life-forms usually question these blanket statements.
BTW, chris30, congratulations on the baby - even if they are a bit late. There was a speed limit on the congratulations highway into town!
Posted by: Nigel Blumenthal, not in your car, on 5:25am Sun 30 Mar 08
Response to HAL101:
Sorry, but speed does not kill.
Inappropriate speed may kill. 28 mph past a school at 3:30pm may be highly dangerous, although (mostly) legal.
85 mph on a well-lit motorway at 2:00 am is not in itself dangerous (unless of course, you've been drinking, but that's another issue).
Speed cameras are just dumb computers that would not ticket the first driver, but would ticket the second one.
The whole "speed kills" mantra, by which you've clearly been landed, hook line and sinker, is designed to appeal to the simple-minded jerk who hasn't got enough brain cells to reason an argument. Reminds me of the line from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where they're looking at replacing Arthur Dent's
