Viewing Thread:
"I've been flashed"

Damn.

Not by anything remotely as hilarious as the male genitalia but by a speed camera on the off sliproad of the M621.

I actually think that speed cameras do some good and used to think that putting a camera on the sliproad was silly. Now I'm not too sure. Okay, I wasn't concentrating and shouldn't have been speeding but I wasn't going that fast. It's just, where it is positioned, if you don't hit you're brakes immediately you're in trouble.

Sigh. I'm hoping it was a reflection from the sun but I have a sinking feeling that it wasn't :(

There would have to be some more serious punishment for repeat offenders.

English_Bloke wrote:

>Instead of a fine, anyone caught speeding should be made to go to the >local station and receive a light spanking

That would encourage speeding.*

*by me

Cub!st wrote:
> I heard they had plans to replace them with digital cameras but
> nothing ever came of it. At least I don't think it did. They'd still
> eventually run out of memory though so it wouldn't be that much
> better I'd guess.

Hmm, I'm sure I read somewhere that digital images wouldn't be acceptable evidence in court, due to the ease of editing. Might be completely wrong though...

Bad.

I would vote for a new punishment though. Instead of a fine, anyone caught speeding should be made to go to the local station and receive a light spanking...no? Ok.

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Rosalind wrote:
> They often don't have any film in them, so even if they do flash,
> you
> might not get a fine.
>
> Yeah, I've been flashed and nothing has came of it before.

I heard they had plans to replace them with digital cameras but nothing ever came of it. At least I don't think it did. They'd still eventually run out of memory though so it wouldn't be that much better I'd guess.

Ineedsleep wrote:
> Damn.
>
> Not by anything remotely as hilarious as the male genitalia but by a
> speed camera on the off sliproad of the M621.

It can be arranged *adjusts trousers* Yup.

Ineedsleep wrote:
> Not sure how many times it flashed, I was only aware that it had.
>
> Someone once told me that you get a 10% leeway on the cameras but it
> is not something I generally test out :)

Its 10% + 2mph.

You get two flashes when it actually takes a picture. It needs two pictures to work out the distance you covered in the half second or whatever. Further you go in that time, faster you were going.

Ineedsleep wrote:
> You edited that while I was replying

I wouldn't do that....

*rolls eyes*

Rosalind wrote:
> So if a camera clocks you doing 33 in a 30 mile zone, you might only have been driving at 30, and therefore the camera will not take a picture.

A camara will only take a picture when you are over .5 of the limit i.e. in a 30 zone limit you are going 35mph, you will be fine. Ive tested it many a time :) therefore theoretically Sleepy was illegal by 3mph and the flash may have been just a warning, but hey she will soon findout and if I remeber correctly, by law they have to write to you within 14 days, anything after is void.

It's not that there is a 10% leway on cameras, more that they are only accurate to 10%. So if a camera clocks you doing 33 in a 30 mile zone, you might only have been driving at 30, and therefore the camera will not take a picture.

Since speedos are only acurate to about 10% as well, your best off sticking to the speed limit (or a little under).