red light camers!

[timwilky]

Well talking to a mate tonight and he is a bit ****ed with cameras. He got nicked a few weeks ago with a red light but his licence was with Swansea to add his bike entitlement so had to go to court.

Wednesday afternoon he gets home, to find a letter telling him he should have be in Doncaster magistrates court on the Tuesday, posted on a second class stamp on the Monday to say you are in court tomorrow. So phones the court and gets an idiot. It is not their fault he has failed to appear and there is now a warrant for his arrest. He eventually puts down the phone. Phones back and asks for the clerk of the court. Who agrees stupid to give by mail a summons to be in court next day etc. and simply says fax your mitigation and I will place it before the court.

So Dave is going to fax his statement. But if the cameras are as premature as the court officials he might as well expect to be facing a black cap.

Originally Posted by tricky

Personally I think red light cameras are great idea.
They should have them at every single set of lights.

No they are a crap idea. Out of say, 15,228 potentially dangerous and stupid things that drivers can do, this will be no doubt a very expensive way of [i]maybe[/] preventing one of them.

It's yet another example of the government being so utterly incompetant they've gone straight for the symptom of a problem, rather than the cause. The cause in this case, being bad driving - which is in its self is a symptom of the breakdown of social responsibility.

highway code states that red traffic signal means stop, not stop if safe, all traffic lights have the same timings for the amber light before they go to red,
so really if youre approaching a green light you should be prepared for it to go to red, they dont just suddenly do it..........although that said weve all done it i expect, just carried on regardless in the hope that it stays green.

if an nip is going to be sent , the LA have 14 days to issue it to the registered keeper, if youre not the registered keeper, it will get sent to them, they get 14days togive the the driver information then a new nip is issued with the new information on. they also have 6 month from the date of the offence to lay the papers before the courts.

different la's have different times for overlap before RLC's record , often dependant on the risk at that junction, although tbh la's only tend to put RLC's on junctions where there have been quite a few accidents.

and they dont always flash, some have light sensors.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

No they are a crap idea. Out of say, 15,228 potentially dangerous and stupid things that drivers can do, this will be no doubt a very expensive way of [i]maybe[/] preventing one of them.

It's yet another example of the government being so utterly incompetant they've gone straight for the symptom of a problem, rather than the cause. The cause in this case, being bad driving - which is in its self is a symptom of the breakdown of social responsibility.

Maybe we should bring back the "Amber Gambler" adverts instead then.
(And the Tufty Club while they're about it !)

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

I often agree with you, but this time I don't. I think they're a good idea and I think they should be employed more. You should always approach traffic lights at a speed where you can stop safely should they change. If you go through the lights when they're changing to red it's generally:

a) your fault for driving too fast [for the conditions]
b) your fault for not paying attention
c) your fault for gambling
d) a fault with the lights [unlikely]

Ditto, gotta disagree with you on this one Jordan and totally agree with Lee.

Good god, I better sit down.

so if the lights are just still in your view and they change to amber just as you go through, have you committed an offence? I thought amber was to warn you they are about to change, and you should stop if you can safely do so.

Originally Posted by need2ride

so if the lights are just still in your view and they change to amber just as you go through, have you committed an offence?

No.

Originally Posted by need2ride

I thought amber was to warn you they are about to change, and you should stop if you can safely do so.

Correct.

if i recall, traffic lights go amber before they go red.
if you cant stop while its amber, then carry on.
if its gone from amber to red . . and you cant stop - something is seriously wrong with your brakes/eyes.

ill get off my high horse now.

if you did get flashed, probably a 30 quid fine and 3 points.
did you see a flash ?

if your lucky, it was a dud / out of film or something.
try dropping a gear before you come to lights, so all you have to do is roll off the throttle, and the engine does most of the work if it does go amber.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

but then what if you're closer and it goes red?

slow down even more?

then what if you're even closer and it goes red?

This is why you get the yellow light as well Basically, if you're going slow enough that you're not through the lights by the time they turned red, you should be able to stop. Alternatively, you should be going quick enough that by the time the lights turn to red, you're on the other side.

wen i saw the lights goin amber, i did brake straight away.but as i got closer i realised that if i kept braking i wud end up in the middle of the junction. so i gave up braking an just accelarated.
i was at the speed limit, but did have enough time to brake to a stop. 2 days gone and nothing through post yet