Speeding ticket revenue

kes

Well-Known Member
I was 'caught on a dual carriageway section on the English side of the new Severn crossing and was advised I had done 81 in a 70 area. I cannot dispute this (Van on bridge) but I know I was doing below 70 when overtaking the only other vehicle on about a 2 mile stretch. I was going to a police HQ because my son received a ticket which we had replied to (I bought him a car). which had been lost by the speed enforcement unit so I delivered a copy !

One wonders about how the revenue is used because that's 3 tickets in 2 weeks for the family - all small exceedence but potentially liable for £1000 fine and points.
I used to think cameras were used to improve road safety but revenue generation, given the conditions these happened in seems a much more plausible justification.
Anyone and thoughts ?
 
I was 'caught on a dual carriageway section on the English side of the new Severn crossing and was advised I had done 81 in a 70 area. I cannot dispute this (Van on bridge) but I know I was doing below 70 when overtaking the only other vehicle on about a 2 mile stretch. I was going to a police HQ because my son received a ticket which we had replied to (I bought him a car). which had been lost by the speed enforcement unit so I delivered a copy !

One wonders about how the revenue is used because that's 3 tickets in 2 weeks for the family - all small exceedence but potentially liable for £1000 fine and points.
I used to think cameras were used to improve road safety but revenue generation, given the conditions these happened in seems a much more plausible justification.
Anyone and thoughts ?
You may want to consider not leaning quite so heavily on the gas pedal. Tell your lad as well.

Jamsie
 
Some maybe road safety however others are almost certainly revenue generation. There is a stretch of road to the west of Aberdeen city and it was gone from a 70, to a 60, then 50 and is now a 40…not many accidents at all and dual lanes on both sides and street lit yet they have been hammering people on it, yet at the end of this road it switches to single lane, no lighting and dry stone dykes either side - but a 60mph speed limit….yet few cameras or speed traps…sometimes the logic is flawed!

Regards,
Gixer
 
Revenue from dedicated speed enforcement units is reinvested completely into road safety, be that enforcement activity, engineering (I.e traffic calming, etc) or educational campaigns.

Frankly, I don't care what they spend it on, because the only way you get a speeding ticket is by getting caught speeding, which you shouldn't be doing...
 
Some maybe road safety however others are almost certainly revenue generation. There is a stretch of road to the west of Aberdeen city and it was gone from a 70, to a 60, then 50 and is now a 40…not many accidents at all and dual lanes on both sides and street lit yet they have been hammering people on it, yet at the end of this road it switches to single lane, no lighting and dry stone dykes either side - but a 60mph speed limit….yet few cameras or speed traps…sometimes the logic is flawed!

Regards,
Gixer
Lang Stracht?
 
I was 'caught on a dual carriageway section on the English side of the new Severn crossing and was advised I had done 81 in a 70 area. I cannot dispute this (Van on bridge) but I know I was doing below 70 when overtaking the only other vehicle on about a 2 mile stretch. I was going to a police HQ because my son received a ticket which we had replied to (I bought him a car). which had been lost by the speed enforcement unit so I delivered a copy !

One wonders about how the revenue is used because that's 3 tickets in 2 weeks for the family - all small exceedence but potentially liable for £1000 fine and points.
I used to think cameras were used to improve road safety but revenue generation, given the conditions these happened in seems a much more plausible justification.
Anyone and thoughts ?
Do Nissan Micra's have cruse control or just no control? :popcorn:
 
While I'm sure some are in accident hotspots, most of the local ones are where people tend to let their cars go a little quick (think long and straight downhill sections with a 30mph limit, your car will roll up to 35 in 3rd gear). These aren't necessarily the same places where the boy racers tear about or where lots of accidents happen, they are just where the most people exceed the limit by enough to be fined. Does make me think the intention is to catch as many people as possible, but not necessarily the worst offenders or to stop people speeding where there have been serious issues.

It may be that the motivation though is not revenue generation but numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if the local force gets a bigger pat on the back for doing 10 people for driving 10% over the limit than for getting 2 who were doing 50%.

However, it is hard to get too annoyed about it. You aren't meant to speed (not that many drivers haven't at some point, but that doesn't make it ok) so you can't complain too much if you get caught.
 
I spoke to 2 people today and both had been handed a ticket recently.
Whilst I obviously know you must be over the limit to get a ticket (yawn yawn), there are no speed cameras on motorways unless linked to lane reductions/roadworks where accident risk is much higher.
I was always told it isn't speed that is a problem its 'inappropriate speed' ie 50 in a 30 but 80 in a 70 on a clear road at design speeds of well over 90 MPH is not inappropriate speed.
To all those who have never exceeded the speed limit - I am in awe and certainly disbelief, basically you just want to give the impression of being 'holier than thou'.
Maybe the police could do with a little of the phrase 'rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men' and be given sensible flexibility with written reasons ?
 
posted by somebody who obviously has never ever broke the speed limit in their life, I take you don’t drive.

Posted by someone who, if caught speeding, would have the good grace to take it on the chin and say "fair play, I shouldn't have been doing that" rather than whine about how it's not fair and they're just trying to make money off innocent (although, clearly not innocent) motorists.

It annoys me. I don't mean to come across as holier-than-thou, but really there is no excuse and if you're caught then you ought to suck it up.
 
Maybe the police could do with a little of the phrase 'rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men' and be given sensible flexibility with written (sic) reasons ?
All Police Officers are free to exercise their discretion, as and when (and if) they see fit.

Perhaps next time you are caught ignoring the speed limits, you could explain your rationale to the Officer who is dealing with you.

Let me know how that pans out.
 
there are no speed cameras on motorways unless linked to lane reductions/roadworks where accident risk is much higher.
You've obviously not done much motorway mileage recently, huge sections are now camera enforced and controlled.
I was always told it isn't speed that is a problem its 'inappropriate speed' ie 50 in a 30 but 80 in a 70 on a clear road at design speeds of well over 90 MPH is not inappropriate speed.

Sure, but whilst there is a limit it's a moot point whether the speed is "safe" or not. It it OK for people to steal if they only take stuff the victim won't miss?
 
It's all very well moaning about what speeding fines revenue is used for. Strangely, it's only those people that get caught speeding that tend to moan about it. It's a diversion tactic. The police are wrong because of where the fines go, whereas really the moaner is in the wrong for speeding. Pay the money, suck it up buttercup and drive slower.
 
I got a ticket 26 in a 20 zone overtaking two side by side cyclists, the lady that had the camera was in an argument with another cyclist with her arms crossed and was very quick in her quick draw to point the camera at me...
 
Back
Top