Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Mobile Speed Camera in front of GATSO


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2182 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi. I'm just wondering what the law is regarding having Mobile Speed Camera Vans stationed next to GATSO's.

 

I received a ticket, my fault I was over the limit but was already slowing as I go past the GATSO every day.

 

It's a 70mph dual carriageway which drops to 60 about 500 yards before the camera, then returns to 70 again. There have been no recent incidents here, any reason the Police would do this?

 

Just seems like a way to make money from those passing the '60' signs still just over the limit as they slow down.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go with the latter, perhaps the GATSO was out of order, so they guessed making it even more obvous by sticking a whacking great white van next to it would give drivers a better opportunity to slow down.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a making money scheme at all. If you didnt speed, theyd make no money. Cameras are placed in areas of high risk or more so, proven high risk/accident areas.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Money making scheme.

 

Nothing you can do about it rather than slam on the brakes next time you see the sign dropping the speed limit for no reason whatsoever and hope nobody hits you from the back.

 

Many of these speed traps here in London, some of them have the reduced speed limit only for a couple of hundred yards in the middle of nowhere.

 

Just consider it another tax for the luxury of having a car.

Don't get upset for things you cannot change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Money making scheme.

Nothing you can do about it rather than slam on the brakes next time you see the sign dropping the speed limit for no reason whatsoever and hope nobody hits you from the back.

 

Or drive within the speed limit, and remain aware of the driving environment.

When the speed limit changes the signs don’t leap out at the last minute.

Read the road ahead and reduce speed in advance of the sign : there will then be no need to “slam on the brakes”!

 

Just seems like a way to make money from those passing the '60' signs still just over the limit as they slow down.

 

The speed limit drops from 70 to 60, a whole 10 mph, and you can’t slow down in time?

Sounds like you aren’t paying attention or were already going over 70 prior to the limit decreasing ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Money making scheme.

Nothing you can do about it rather than slam on the brakes next time you see the sign dropping the speed limit for no reason whatsoever and hope nobody hits you from the back.

Many of these speed traps here in London, some of them have the reduced speed limit only for a couple of hundred yards in the middle of nowhere.

Just consider it another tax for the luxury of having a car.

Don't get upset for things you cannot change.

 

you REALLY need to stop giving out bad advice

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old story.

Gatso are placed at high accident spots.

It could be where there is a junction coming up, 70 to 60 is reasonable.

Could be pedestrians cross etc etc.

 

The best excuse I hear is my car is not designed to go 20mph.....

Well yes it is, your attitude is not designed to drive at 20mph

Link to post
Share on other sites

you REALLY need to stop giving out bad advice

 

What advice is bad?

That there's nothing the op can do?

If you want to give false hopes and tell the op to appeal and go to court, by all means do that, but it will be a hopeless and costly exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

T

Or drive within the speed limit, and remain aware of the driving environment.

When the speed limit changes the signs don’t leap out at the last minute.

Read the road ahead and reduce speed in advance of the sign : there will then be no need to “slam on the brakes”!

 

Sounds like you don't drive.

 

In a dual carriageway while everyone is going 70mph and there are no obstacles or bends but just straight road ahead, it is not unusual for drivers to pay attention to the traffic rather than street FURNITURE.

 

Dropping the speed limit just for the purpose of the camera is a clear money making scheme.

 

There's no other reason for the limit to be dropped in a straight line in the middle of nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going with the flow of traffic... No defence.

Speed limits are not dropped for no reason. Their is always a reason.

 

Junction coming up.

School zone

Blind hill

Etc etc

 

You might not agree with the reason but that's no excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you don't drive.

In a dual carriageway while everyone is going 70mph and there are no obstacles or bends but just straight road ahead, it is not unusual for drivers to pay attention to the traffic rather than street FURNITURE.

Dropping the speed limit just for the purpose of the camera is a clear money making scheme.

There's no other reason for the limit to be dropped in a straight line in the middle of nowhere.

 

Then in your scenario, the drivers are at fault.

Speed limits are there for a reason.

Not for you to ignore because everyone else does.

 

And again, the speed limit doesnt drop just because theres a camera.

 

The camera is there because theres a historic trend of people speeding on that stretch of road/driving dangerously, or many recorded accidents on that stretch.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you don't drive.

In a dual carriageway while everyone is going 70mph and there are no obstacles or bends but just straight road ahead, it is not unusual for drivers to pay attention to the traffic rather than street FURNITURE.

Dropping the speed limit just for the purpose of the camera is a clear money making scheme.

There's no other reason for the limit to be dropped in a straight line in the middle of nowhere.

 

I do drive.

 

I don’t pay attention only to the traffic.

I pay attention to the traffic around me, the conditions around me, and the signs showing the speed limit.

 

If I choose to exceed the speed limit, I equally choose to accept the potential penalty for exceeding the speed limit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then in your scenario, the drivers are at fault. Speed limits are there for a reason. Not for you to ignore because everyone else does. And again, the speed limit doesnt drop just because theres a camera. The camera is there because theres a historic trend of people speeding on that stretch of road/driving dangerously, or many recorded accidents on that stretch.

 

Anyone who drives knows that most speed cameras are there to make money.

 

I can point at dozens of them in my area that don't serve any other purpose.

 

Then of course there's the elite group of respectable people who blame and hate drivers.

 

Nothing us motorists can do about it rather than accept the fines and points so insurance companies can get richer.

 

BTW, I only got done once by a speed trap in 25 years driving , before you start saying that I'm a boy racer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, then.

Is it a plot to make the insurance companies richer?

The speed camera partnership richer?

Both??

 

Just who is doing the plotting, and how??

Edited by dx100uk
Quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who drives knows that most speed cameras are there to make money.

But, equally, you could argue that anyone who drives but does not go past a speed camera location at excess speed does not get points or have to part with any money, and the camera partnership go broke. It works both ways.

 

 

And before you counter with, I'm obviously a lover of speed cameras... I'm not, I hate the damn things. I've been driving 35 years but I'm also switched on enough not to travel everywhere at warp 9. The only time I have been 'caught' by a camera in my own car was 75 in a 30 (3am, only car on the road, dry, clear, good vis etc) but that was a genuine emergency and it got NFA'd by the police.

 

Oh, and I did once get stopped by officers, not long after I'd started driving for doing 36 in a 30. But that was on a dual carriageway and I (wrongly as it turned out) thought it was a 40. That got NFA'd as well.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What advice is bad?

 

This is:

 

Nothing you can do about it rather than slam on the brakes next time you see the sign dropping the speed limit for no reason

 

Not only bad but irresponsible.

There is no need for anybody to "slam on the brakes" when they see a change of speed limit.

 

Most changes can be accommodated without any braking at all.

 

The other aspects of your argument are largely obtuse.

 

Answering the original question, there is no "law"against having Mobile Speed Camera Vans stationed next to GATSO's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another one ready to point fingers at drivers.

 

If I am on a motorway and been doing 70mph for miles and miles, the corner of my eye is gonna see a 60 sign and a few yards later a yellow box, automatically the right foot will go full on the brakes to avoid lining pockets of insurance and government.

 

Then of course everyone else is a great driver like you and never gets caught in these speed trap...

 

That's why there are so few motorists caught...

 

I want to use words out of movies like obtuse, but I don't watch tv while driving...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that got out of hand quickly,

was just a question so no need to rant at each other.

 

Yes there is a filter junction just ahead of the GATSO which is clearly marked well in advance

 

I don't travel at Warp 9 or Slam My Brakes on at every camera.

I simply ease off the throttle as I pass through the speed change sign.

 

The law technically states that you must be at the new speed as you pass the sign so that's my fault, no problem with that.

 

The mobile camera

- pointing backwards toward oncoming traffic passing the threshold

- was put in place on the day purely to make money from this.

 

Everyone is travelling at 60 well before the junction and the GATSO.

Makes zero difference to road safety.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another one ready to point fingers at drivers.

 

If I am on a motorway and been doing 70mph for miles and miles, the corner of my eye is gonna see a 60 sign and a few yards later a yellow box, automatically the right foot will go full on the brakes to avoid lining pockets of insurance and government.

 

Then of course everyone else is a great driver like you and never gets caught in these speed trap...

 

That's why there are so few motorists caught...

 

I want to use words out of movies like obtuse, but I don't watch tv while driving...

 

If you only see the 60 sign “out the corner of your eye” and “Have to go full on the brakes” to avoid passing it at more than 60 : you aren’t paying enough attention to the road ahead.

 

“automatically” going “full on the brakes” is an appropriate response to the sudden appearance of a new hazard.

It is below the standard of a careful and competent driver for fixed speed limit signs.

You may not be watching TV while driving but you aren’t paying appropriate attention to the environment you are driving in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a police officer could prove it , it would be driving without due care and attention.

 

I do find the driving does get in the way of me watching tv tho! 😁

 

‘Without due care & consideration for other road users’ if another road user is inconvenienced.

Careless driving is the almost identical offence, but doesn’t require another road user to be inconvenienced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...