It seems that the recent post about Nanny getting tough with speeding has over stimulated some you!Therefore, in the interests of keeping the discussion on speeding going, here is another Nanny speeding story; this time though she gets hoisted by her own petard.
Sergeant Ted Bloodworth, of Bedfordshire Police, was clocked speeding in one of his force's mobile offices. He was photographed in the specially adapted van, as he passed through a 40mph roadworks zone in neighbouring Cambridgeshire.
Under his force's policy, he can appeal to his commander; saying there was a legitimate reason, or face court proceedings.
The lesson here is, if you are going to speed, don't use a mobile office.
A few years ago, around the time that 'Safety Cameras' became big business, my wife was surprised to be on the receiving end of a speeding ticket.
ReplyDeleteWe went to see the video. The claim was 40 in a 30. We were sent 2 frames from the video, one showing the point of measurement and the other the confirmation of the registration number. From the times on the images and the positional information I was able to estimate the average speed of the vehicle between the two points. 31 mph plus or minus 1mph.
Straight road, clear visibility (other than the advertising hoarding obscuring the view of the Scamera van and the junction of ther access road in which it was parked) and light traffic.
It seemed odd but back then, knowing little, the cheaper option was to cough up the cash and accept the points.
About 18 months later she was almost taken off the road by a Safety Camera van from the same outfit overtaking a cyclist on a poorly sighted bend in a residential area. She had just joined the main road from a well used junction located just after (or before depending on the direction of travel) the bend.
The two people in the van were, presumably, in a hurry to get to their first appointment of the day to maximise the revenue from their shift. Safety did not seem to be at the forefront of their thinking.
It seems from the report above that such lapses are not uncommon.
That in itself is not a surprise - the people in the scamera businesses are only human after all. But, given that, it does grate rather to have Nanny's minions perpetually spouting the safety mantra and telling us how easy it is to follow when there is plenty of evidence that they are unable, or unwilling, to follow it themselves.
But that seems to be typical of certain types of Nannies.
It's hard to believe that anything will come of this particular incident, since the main purpose of these cameras is "revenue enhancement", not law enforcement. For this reason it's unlikely that Nanny will see any benefit in penalizing one of her own. Where's the profit in that?
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, Nanny rarely ever punishes one of her own musclemen for violating a traffic law unless it involves serious injury, damage to or destruction of property or loss of life and then only because it's usually impossible to sweep such incidents under the rug.
Camera vans in my area (Reading) regularly park on white hatched areas, double yellows, cycle paths, foot paths and in the centre of the road obstructing the view of traffic islands. Doesn't surprise me that the things are dangerous when in motion too!
ReplyDelete