Sanatorium...

  

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  dyl   16 Jul 2009 15:31 
 To:  Mouse      45 of 71 
36331.45 In reply to 36331.39 

I've seen a couple of cars with multiple tickets - one with about 10, and one in a motorway services with probably about 30 tickets - I think that one had a note on the dashboard saying "Broken down" or something. The windscreen was completely covered with tickets anyway.

 

One thing that used to work for someone at our venue was to drive onto the kerb, switch on his hazard lights and leave his boot wide open all evening. Because nobody would do that if they weren't making a real delivery.

 

I've been pulled for speeding once, in France, but the points never made it over the channel.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  cynicoid   16 Jul 2009 17:38 
 To:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)      46 of 71 
36331.46 In reply to 36331.44 
I think it's just another blue light.


Seems a bit pointless then. It's the rear number plate light, only comes on when the 'blues' are lit, otherwise it's a normal white number plate light.

There's already flashing strobes on the roof and rear of the vehicle and it's quite obvious to anyone following that the ambulance's on an emergency so why put a small blue light in the number plate ? Must be a reason, if not for the cameras then something else. Why would the plate need to be illuminated in blue ?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)   16 Jul 2009 19:05 
 To:  cynicoid      47 of 71 
36331.47 In reply to 36331.46 
I think you're over analysing it.

Dan Herman
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  craig (CHARTLEY)   16 Jul 2009 19:48 
 To:  cynicoid      48 of 71 
36331.48 In reply to 36331.46 
I don't know about ambulances but I've certainly heard on the radio police cars that are responding to calls at speed shout in in whenever they believe they've activated a speed camera/red light camera etc. Never been in a car etc when any camera has been set off though. They're logged as having happened which makes it easier when the paperwork comes through.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Iain (WIBBLEBOY)   19 Jul 2009 08:34 
 To:  Serg (NUKKLEAR)      49 of 71 
36331.49 In reply to 36331.32 
I think SPECS cameras are possibly the hardest to see (no stripes etc) and also the most difficult to trick, since they work on average speed - however, they're definitely visible during the day. I've also heard of a possible way of tricking them: just drive through them on different lanes :D


Well, the ANPR cameras in use on the motorways for traffic flow monitoring have always been based on site (group of cameras), rather than individual cameras. I remember that much from my work on the travel time road signs. I'd be surprised if the SPECS cameras didn't use the same technology.

We noticed our first set of SPECS cameras recently on the A1 near the Angel of the North, apparently they've been installed to enforce a 40MPH limit through a contraflow that will be in operation while a bridge is rebuilt, there's no mention if the cameras will stay once the roadworks are complete. Personally I'd like to see them reused between junctions 62 and 63; it's a 5 mile stretch with no exits and routinely has people doing a ton. Maybe it's just me, but I hate speeders.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  spinning_plates   19 Jul 2009 15:03 
 To:  Iain (WIBBLEBOY)      50 of 71 
36331.50 In reply to 36331.49 
quote:
Maybe it's just me, but I hate speeders.


I ride a motorbike in Canada - yesterday coming back from a ride, heading South in a 60km/h stretch, into a 50km/h more residential stretch, I was doing 65, so slowed to about 55, so the car that was behind me moved out into the "slow" lane and started accelerating. Now this was pointless, because although my bike probably has a lower top speed than the car, in a residential section you'd be an idiot to go there and it can accelerate fast.

As it tried to pass me I just opened up the throttle and prevented it from getting ahead. After a bit it slowed down again and so did I. Not much further up the road from there I've seen police step out in front of (or at least right next to) vehicles with a second cop with a speed gun and I just have no interest in getting into any trouble with the law.

At least on the highway, the speed limit is 100 and the bike won't do much more than 120 (with a lot of people doing a lot more than that, so my chances of getting pulled over for speeding on the highway are slim).
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  JonCooper   19 Jul 2009 15:09 
 To:  spinning_plates      51 of 71 
36331.51 In reply to 36331.50 
is that 100kph? seems remarkably slow (62mph)
Jon
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  spinning_plates   19 Jul 2009 21:58 
 To:  JonCooper      52 of 71 
36331.52 In reply to 36331.51 
It is 100km/h, yes. For doing 150km/h (93mph) you can get an instant roadside impounding of your vehicle, loss of licence and $10,000 (£5,000)fine.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS   19 Jul 2009 22:01 
 To:  spinning_plates      53 of 71 
36331.53 In reply to 36331.52 

Wow, really?

 

Crazy!
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  spinning_plates   19 Jul 2009 22:05 
 To:  ANT_THOMAS      54 of 71 
36331.54 In reply to 36331.53 
How oten it happen, I don't know, but there are big signs on the highway reminding you every now and then. There are also signs that say "aircraft patrolled" in lots of places, but not many speed cameras - mostly just red light cameras.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  patch   19 Jul 2009 22:38 
 To:  spinning_plates      55 of 71 
36331.55 In reply to 36331.52 
Some bloke got caught here the other day doing 219km/h (136mph) in a 90km/h (55mph) zone. His car got impounded for a week, but apparently he's kept his licence until the court case in September. Mind you, he's facing his car being scrapped and dangerous driving charges when it does get to court.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  JonCooper   20 Jul 2009 14:41 
 To:  spinning_plates      56 of 71 
36331.56 In reply to 36331.54 
"aircraft patrolled" ??? ffs, that must be cost effective (not)
Jon
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Jo (JELLS)   20 Jul 2009 16:35 
 To:  JonCooper      57 of 71 
36331.57 In reply to 36331.56 
Given that there are long stretches of highway with nothing around (i mean hundreds of km), aircraft is probably more cost effective.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   20 Jul 2009 17:42 
 To:  Jo (JELLS)      58 of 71 
36331.58 In reply to 36331.57 
They have a similar approach in Australia.

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Jo (JELLS)   20 Jul 2009 17:57 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      59 of 71 
36331.59 In reply to 36331.58 
Makes sense there too!
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  JonCooper   20 Jul 2009 19:38 
 To:  Jo (JELLS)      60 of 71 
36331.60 In reply to 36331.57 
if there are 100s of km with no-one else around why does it matter if someone is speeding?
and, by cost effective, I was wondering about the cost of maintaining the aircraft, pilot etc against the revenue it generates
Jon
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   20 Jul 2009 19:49 
 To:  Dr Nick (FOZZA)       61 of 71 
36331.61 In reply to 36331.1 
What's with the name and folder change? :S
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Jo (JELLS)   20 Jul 2009 19:51 
 To:  JonCooper      62 of 71 
36331.62 In reply to 36331.60 
Because it's against the law, because there are other drivers on the road who might be endangered, because in some areas you could end up smashing into something like a moose (which can kill you even at much lower speeds), in the winter, road conditions aren't optimal, etc.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Jo (JELLS)   20 Jul 2009 20:01 
 To:  JonCooper      63 of 71 
36331.63 In reply to 36331.60 
Ontario government press release from 2007 about expanding the OPP air patrol.

Also found this blog report for air patrol results for May 31 of this year - over an 11km stretch of highway.

Also, it's not constant surveillance. The province doesn't have that many planes. This article says it costs about $125/hour to run one of the planes.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  patch   20 Jul 2009 20:52 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      64 of 71 
36331.64 In reply to 36331.58 
Do they? That would explain why all the road train drivers are stoned off their faces. Must be quite difficult to tell from altitude.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All  
 

1–20  21–40  41–60  61–71

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats