New tactic with speed camera van.... (1 Viewer)

[EX51SSS]

Please share a link then

Can't do link but here are safety cameras in vans that are not necessarily manned by police

 

[sdc77]

Please share a link then

No.. (and if you knew you were right you wouldn't have asked)
but if you fancy reading it yourself it's The Police Act 1996, s. 90

Safety camera partnership vans are often funded from various sources such as local authorities etc hence them not always being marked as police or solely police.

 

[EX51SSS]

As I read it there is no legal requirement for a 30mph sign?

You may well be right but I think they're there. The larger one is usually there but in other speed restricted areas they are smaller ones and by their name repeater, they are repeated.

 

[Silver-Fox]

No.. (and if you knew you were right you wouldn't have asked)
but if you fancy reading it yourself it's The Police Act 1996, s. 90

Safety camera partnership vans are often funded from various sources such as local authorities etc hence them not always being marked as police or solely police.

Rather an aggressive response if you don't mind me saying

I will investigate later

 

[GeriatricWanderer]

There are two types of speeding.

Those who intentionally choose to speed for whom I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever and happy to see penalties imposed.

Those who try to stick to the limits but slip up occasionally for whom I do have sympathy and believe their prior good record should be taken into account.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sdc77]

Rather an aggressive response if you don't mind me saying

I will investigate later

I think it was intended to be a weary response to be honest.. enjoy your investigations

 

[DBK]

When they do that the vehicle going away from them are a long way to the left of the camera. The HYPOTENUSE effect is therefore in action, as the vehicle speed is not accurate by quite a margin. The speed recorded is that if the long arm of the triangle (Hypotenuse), formed using the true distance covered and the width of the road. Depending on the speed given it is possible by calculation to get the true speed of the vehicle and it might be a cause to have the ticket dropped if it is worked to be below the speed given.
Work it out on paper if you do not believe me.

I don't know if this has been mentioned in the preceding 4 pages as I haven't time to read them all. Apologies if it has but the effect will be the opposite of what you have suggested. The camera will record the speed the vehicle is moving away from it. If the vehicle is moving at an angle to the camera it will record a lower velocity than the actual speed of the vehicle. In other words it won't record a faster speed.
To help understand this imagine the case where vehicle was travelling at right angles to the camera. At the point where it is exactly at right angles the speed of the vehicle relative to the camera is zero - but the vehicle itself, relative to the ground, could be travelling at very high speed.

 

[Jim]

There was a video going around where someone in a van was confronted and told he was impersonating a police officer but I don't think anything came of it. The videographer probably has a point if the vehicle is solely marked up as a police vehicle but the Safety Camera Partnerships comprise of among others, councils, highways Agency and police and their badges and logos are all over the vans so a quick glance and they look like police but I'm sure they'd get off if prosecuted.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/motoring/watch-police-speed-camera-operator-7879615

 

[Kingham]

If some one is using a police vehicle that person has to be a police officer otherwise said person is impersonating a police officer. Last time i looked that was an offence

Unless you know different

I hope you don't mind me joining in, but I know different.

There are several authorised users of police vehicles, such as driver handy people, police workshops staff carrying out road tests, external workshops staff carrying out road tests, PCSOs, civilian camera van operators.

The above list is not exhaustive and none of the above would be impersonating a police officer if they were using the vehicle as authorised in their role.

If a mechanic decided to switch on the blue lights and stop a member of the public, that is outside of their remit and could be construed as impersonation.

 

[Silver-Fox]

I think it was intended to be a weary response to be honest.. enjoy your investigations

Weary response? Didn't think I had been overly active on this thread.

Any way had a quick look at The Police Act 1996 section 90 and the way I read it I would say I was correct. As if the vehicle is marked up POLICE one would assume a Police Oficer is inside operating it, well I would

@EX51SSS as per your pictures neither van has POLICE on them only the forces badge so no misunderstanding there.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sdc77]

Weary response? Didn't think I had been overly active on this thread.

Any way had a quick look at The Police Act 1996 section 90 and the way I read it I would say I was correct. As if the vehicle is marked up POLICE one would assume a Police Oficer is inside operating it, well I would

@EX51SSS as per your pictures neither van has POLICE on them only the forces badge so no misunderstanding there.

Well you're wrong and you obviously didn't read the act correctly. .. I'm sure if you report the hundreds of police vehicles driven daily ...not by police officers.. someone may eventually respond to you.

Edit .. Here's a few examples.
Horse boxes.. often marked police driven by staff.
Patrol vehicles and vans .. driven by pcsos
Police Removal vehicles . Often marked and with blue lights .. police staff
Safety camera vans .. often staff
Anpr vans .. often staff .. but often not marked
The list goes on
Anyone who is authorised by the relevant force . to drive them.. can.
None of them would be impersonating a police officer.
And if you think about it.. it's common sense.
Have a great time reporting them all

 

[EX51SSS]

Weary response? Didn't think I had been overly active on this thread.

Any way had a quick look at The Police Act 1996 section 90 and the way I read it I would say I was correct. As if the vehicle is marked up POLICE one would assume a Police Oficer is inside operating it, well I would

@EX51SSS as per your pictures neither van has POLICE on them only the forces badge so no misunderstanding there.

I see your point @richr.. If marked Police then it has to be a Police Officer otherwise impersonating except when authorised civilians use them on extremely limited jobs.

 

[Silver-Fox]

@Kingham I am more than happy for your input, I would never profes to know everything

I was informed if a mechanic was road testing a Police vehicle the roof lights had to be covered.

Yes PCO's can drive police cars under instruction from I think the duty Sergant or above.

Reading the act impersonation is deemed if you would reasonably believe someone is impersonating an officer.

Anyway time for work now

 

[Silver-Fox]

@sdc77 I don't recall I ever said I was going to report anyone

 

[Daz n Tina]

I suppose I had better get my speedo fixed, up until now the wife has been feeding my knotted rope out of her window.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[DanielFord]

@DanielFord didn't come across like that to.me.. Just because a user of the Police van works directly for the Police but not a Policeman that doesn't make him guilty of impersonating. There could be incidents where it's a safety officer operating a safety camera not a policeman operating a safety camera. Certainly round here they are safety cameras in the vans.
View attachment 151153 View attachment 151154

Weren't me who said about impersonating an officer!

 

[sdc77]

@sdc77 I don't recall I ever said I was going to report anyone

I'm suprised.. if you think they're committing a crime ..
Maybe they're not eh

 

[parigby]

I got nicked a couple of weeks ago for the first time in 42yrs doing 58 in what I thought was a 60 limit in one of our vans but it turned out to be 50mph so am now waiting to go on a speed awareness course on March the 29th to avoid the points on my licence.the cost of the course is £85.00
Brian &Jo

Brian - did my course two days ago, and l have to say that whilst originally being very sceptical, l found it really useful and very informative. On the plus side too, the fee is cheaper than the fine, and no points.

 

[Jim]

Brian - did my course two days ago, and l have to say that whilst originally being very sceptical, l found it really useful and very informative. On the plus side too, the fee is cheaper than the fine, and no points.

Do you have to tell your insurers that you were caught speeding and have taken a course?

 

[appydaze]

I don't know if this has been mentioned in the preceding 4 pages as I haven't time to read them all. Apologies if it has but the effect will be the opposite of what you have suggested. The camera will record the speed the vehicle is moving away from it. If the vehicle is moving at an angle to the camera it will record a lower velocity than the actual speed of the vehicle. In other words it won't record a faster speed.
To help understand this imagine the case where vehicle was travelling at right angles to the camera. At the point where it is exactly at right angles the speed of the vehicle relative to the camera is zero - but the vehicle itself, relative to the ground, could be travelling at very high speed.

If you are ever driving in and around Tunbridge Wells you will find the cameras take a picture of you approaching and leaving..... proper belt and braces x

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[DavidG58]

I got nicked a couple of weeks ago for the first time in 42yrs doing 58 in what I thought was a 60 limit in one of our vans but it turned out to be 50mph so am now waiting to go on a speed awareness course on March the 29th to avoid the points on my licence.the cost of the course is £85.00
Brian &Jo

slightly off topic, but mentioned here before and until I read it here I didn't know this

most panel vans are limited to 50mph in a derestricted area (60mph) and 60mph on dual carriageways where most others can do 70 mph, I think this is the general rule for MH's over 3.5T as well

 

[EX51SSS]

Weren't me who said about impersonating an officer!

Sorry got it wrong.

 

[gus-lopez]

What are you in about? If it's a police vehicle and he works for the police it doesn't matter if it has police on it or not.
And .. a cash generator or a muppet catcher.
As it's only catching people who are speeding then what's the problem?

Correct

But they don't stop them, there isn't a speed camera EVER that has STOPPED a car speeding. The car goes past at speed, if the driver believes they are at the correct limit, they will never slow down.
All the camera vans do is send out a NiP up to 14 days later. No offence is ever prevented with camera vans!

Correct. Just revenue generators.

No, not at all. If the signs were not properly in place according to the relevant legislation, of course I would appeal. But I think we've all probably missed a less that ideally sited sign (albeit legally correct) and got confused over the actual limit. If in doubt, I tend to slow down but even then I might not slow enough.

It shouldn't be up to you to have to check that any legislation, regardless of what it is for, is correctly installed & used .
They are just opearting on the "do as I say "principle.

Oh no! I'll never argue that all signage in the UK is textbook clear. That was my point - perhaps not clearly made - that if the signs are properly sited, one has to live with the consequences of speeding but in a case like this where one could easily demonstrate that that signage was inadequate, then of course a speeding ticket should be contested.

When it's too late! :-(

I should also bring up my dismay at the amount of drivers that clearly have exactly no idea of the speed limit. This thread seems a good place to rant, so I shall!

OK we shall now pose a highway code/Road Traffic Act question, for this scenario, we will assume we are driving a regular car! consider this location:
https://goo.gl/maps/easnyKD4L1m
Prior to this location, you will have had 2 lanes available, it has dropped to one lane and these speed limit signs are shown. Very clearly we are now in a 60 mph limit.
Now, here's the point where I'll bet 99.9% of people get the wrong answer, about 2 miles further up the road, we encounter these signs, what do they mean to our speed limit?:
https://goo.gl/maps/yEHFQ5hcrTz

I'd disagree with th e response as the nationaal limit is 60mph EXCEPT on dual carriageways & motorways.
When the road changes by the "deristricted/national speed limit sign " the limit still remains 60mph as although there is an armco it is still one lane.

No.. (and if you knew you were right you wouldn't have asked)
but if you fancy reading it yourself it's The Police Act 1996, s. 90

Safety camera partnership vans are often funded from various sources such as local authorities etc hence them not always being marked as police or solely police.

That basically states that they are impersonating ploice officers if in a vehicle marked police & wearing clothing , as in white shirt, dark blue trousers ,tie , etc; that people would reasonably construe they were a police officer.

There was a video going around where someone in a van was confronted and told he was impersonating a police officer but I don't think anything came of it. The videographer probably has a point if the vehicle is solely marked up as a police vehicle but the Safety Camera Partnerships comprise of among others, councils, highways Agency and police and their badges and logos are all over the vans so a quick glance and they look like police but I'm sure they'd get off if prosecuted.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/motoring/watch-police-speed-camera-operator-7879615

There is more than one. Why when you confront them do they always leave , should be the question ?

Weary response? Didn't think I had been overly active on this thread.

Any way had a quick look at The Police Act 1996 section 90 and the way I read it I would say I was correct. As if the vehicle is marked up POLICE one would assume a Police Oficer is inside operating it, well I would

@EX51SSS as per your pictures neither van has POLICE on them only the forces badge so no misunderstanding there.

Exactly. Just scammers

Well you're wrong and you obviously didn't read the act correctly. .. I'm sure if you report the hundreds of police vehicles driven daily ...not by police officers.. someone may eventually respond to you.

Edit .. Here's a few examples.
Horse boxes.. often marked police driven by staff.
Patrol vehicles and vans .. driven by pcsos
Police Removal vehicles . Often marked and with blue lights .. police staff
Safety camera vans .. often staff
Anpr vans .. often staff .. but often not marked
The list goes on
Anyone who is authorised by the relevant force . to drive them.. can.
None of them would be impersonating a police officer.
And if you think about it.. it's common sense.
Have a great time reporting them all

You're digging the hole even deeper.
horse box= wouldn't be in a lookalike uniform
pcso = authorised
Removal vehicles = not attempting to look like one
safety camera vans = not marked with "police" on it
Anpr vans = if unmarked ,then ok .If marked then it isn't


Yes the list may go on but it is S90 /2
" in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive "
that is/was the intention with the signed camera vans .

I'm suprised.. if you think they're committing a crime ..
Maybe they're not eh

I wouldn't hesitate to make a complaint/stop& check.

Do you have to tell your insurers that you were caught speeding and have taken a course?

Some companies ask ,I believe, & then treat it the same as if you'd been done.

 

[EX51SSS]

 

[DanielFord]

I'd disagree with th e response as the nationaal limit is 60mph EXCEPT on dual carriageways & motorways.
When the road changes by the "deristricted/national speed limit sign " the limit still remains 60mph as although there is an armco it is still one lane.

It is a single lane dual carriageway, this is an excerpt from the road traffic act:
"dual carriageway road" - a road which comprises a central reservation and “all-purpose dual carriageway road” means a dual carriageway road which is not a motorway

The number of lanes does not affect the dual carriageway status, a road with 5 lanes is still a dual carriageway.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[EX51SSS]

It is a single lane dual carriageway, this is an excerpt from the road traffic act:
"dual carriageway road" - a road which comprises a central reservation and “all-purpose dual carriageway road” means a dual carriageway road which is not a motorway

The number of lanes does not affect the dual carriageway status, a road with 5 lanes is still a dual carriageway.

Correct. Irrespective of how many lanes in each direction, a dual carriageway has to have a physical barrier.

 

[DanielFord]

Correct. Irrespective of how many lanes in each direction, a dual carriageway has to have a physical barrier.

Exactly, I think the vast majority of motorists get it wrong because we use the term "dual carriageway", therefore they wrongly assume this means 2 lanes.
Perhaps if we used the American term "Divided Highway" it would end the confusion?

 

[Silver-Fox]

I'm suprised.. if you think they're committing a crime ..
Maybe they're not eh

Nah just better things to do with my time

 

[DanielFord]

There are also roads that have 2 lanes or more available that are single carriageway, so the speed limit is 60, not 70. Here for example:
https://goo.gl/maps/s3TVRGZpZzp

That is single carriageway, not dual carriageway. Thus when I drive along there, I get people sitting right on my back bumper trying to get me to go faster.

 

[sdc77]

Nah just better things to do with my time

I too have better things to do but felt I had to comment on your original statement that they would be committing an offence .. once again.. they are not.
:: the wording::
1)Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(2)Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3)Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

(4)In this section—

(a)“article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document,

F1(aa)“member of a police force” includes a member of the British Transport Police Force,] and

(b)“special constable” means a special constable appointed for a police area.
::::::::::
So. I've highlighted some bits for you.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}