"Unfair" Fine for using bus lane?

[the snail]

That is an absolute great example of someone[the physicist] who;

a) has a high IQ but no common sense, and

b) someone who has an over inflated opinion of oneself

Stick to lecturing.

and c) doesn't seem to understand basic maths

 

[abo]

That article is ridiculously sympathetic.



The two costs are unrelated to each other.
The defendant chose to contest the conviction, as is their right.
They lost, so costs (substantially reduced, I might add, so still leaving the taxpayer with a hefty bill) were awarded.

So why the spurious attempt to paint the costs as "unfair" in relation to the original fine?

Maybe next time she'll:

• think twice before breaking the speed limit
• not waste everyone's time with a ridiculous defence

I'll just add that he must be a poor physicist to argue that a speed camera is not effective on a bend because light travels in a straight line!
You'd have be travelling extremely fast for that to make more than 0.00000000001% difference to the recorded speed (light travels at c. 186,000 miles/second)

His arguement might have been flawed, but I was staggered at this statement from the camera people, it is just all kinds of wrong!

“However, the judge has ruled that in speeding cases it is the law of the land that matters, not the law of physics. “Maybe it is time that we left physics in the classroom and allowed cameras to get on with the job of reducing death and injuries on our roads.”

I'll go back to my holiday now, I've been surfing today

 

[benb]

His arguement might have been flawed, but I was staggered at this statement from the camera people, it is just all kinds of wrong!

“However, the judge has ruled that in speeding cases it is the law of the land that matters, not the law of physics. “Maybe it is time that we left physics in the classroom and allowed cameras to get on with the job of reducing death and injuries on our roads.”

I'll go back to my holiday now, I've been surfing today

Yes, that was utter drivel too.

 

[dellzeqq]

His argument I imagine will be that the camera measures his speed coming directly towards it while the car is in fact traveling on a curve so covering more distance in the same period of time ...

hang on, now I type that it's an argument that he was going faster than the camera recorded isn't it?

I like that even on his own best estimate he's still over the limit

indeed!

 

[dellzeqq]

According to what is written on a Sheffield forum discussing this subject the TRO was made in 1998 under the Experimental Traffic Scheme section of the RTR Act. If that is so the TRO expired 18 months later presumably in 2000 sometime. Therefore the driver could not have been in breach of a TRO as one didn't exist.

ah! Pure gold!

 

[PBancroft]

According to what is written on a Sheffield forum discussing this subject the TRO was made in 1998 under the Experimental Traffic Scheme section of the RTR Act. If that is so the TRO expired 18 months later presumably in 2000 sometime. Therefore the driver could not have been in breach of a TRO as one didn't exist.

 

[Walter Mitty]

And you call that a reliable source?

As reliable as any forum or do you know otherwise

 

[PBancroft]

As reliable as any forum or do you know otherwise

I'm not sure if you're just stupid, or if trolling and stupid.

 

[Walter Mitty]

I'm not sure if you're just stupid, or if trolling and stupid.

Wow, fighting talk. Put your fists back in your pockets boy. Seriously though - I'm just stupid

 

[Parrot of Doom]

The Parrot Of Doom!!!!!

How did you claim against the X5 driver go???

I now have a helmet camera and will, if I encounter him again, have evidence of his misbehaviour. I also know his name and address, and the name of his company.

Unfortunately a few internet experts thought I was lying about the matter and that it was acceptable to be bullied by a large vehicle, verbally abused and physically assaulted, and that I was an idiot to phone the police, so I bade them farewell and left the site. No great loss, the last few years it's been populated by bigots.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

His argument I imagine will be that the camera measures his speed coming directly towards it while the car is in fact traveling on a curve so covering more distance in the same period of time ...

hang on, now I type that it's an argument that he was going faster than the camera recorded isn't it?

I like that even on his own best estimate he's still over the limit

 

[Tynan]

light travels really really really fast, 186,000 mph ish if I recall my Physics A level learning rightly

so it can probably go round the block a few times, get the drinks in and do LEJOG and back and still have no significant effect on the speed camera's accuracy

one would have thought, I do only have A level Physics though

 

[Parrot of Doom]

The speed of light is irrelevant, it is the accuracy of the timing of the camera and flash that is most important.

 

[benb]

The speed of light is irrelevant, it is the accuracy of the timing of the camera and flash that is most important.

The speed is primarily measured by radar, with the camera (two pictures 0.7s apart, and marks on the road a set distance apart) used to record the licence plate, and to serve as a cross check if the speed is disputed.

 

[Mushroomgodmat]

On the one time I drove though London I was caught in a bus lane. My excuse was basic ignorance. In this case I was in heavy travic, late at night, didnt really know where I was, stuck in slow moving traffic. Somewhere on my way out of London I must have followed traffic into a bus lane.

The first I heard about it was when I got a fine though the post

While pissed off about the fine, I had no real complaint about paying it, but I can say with confidence we wont be traveling back to london by car, which means we wont be doing our christmas shopping there either.

I really understand the importance of maintaining this kind of law, but I would think most people who get fines for it are people who dont live or work in London.