A new police camera that can catch motorists from over half a mile away unveiled by Gloucestershire police last week as part of Operation Indemnis, a pilot project designed to help reduce the number of accidents caused by dangerous driving.
The new camera, affectionately dubbed “The Long Ranger,” not only catches drivers who are speeding but also those who are tailgating, not wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone at the wheel. The culmination of all of the above makes this camera a truly powerful tool for the police, enabling them to identify number plates and drivers from over a kilometre away.
Aims and hopes
One of the main ways the camera will be used is the education and awareness of drivers. It is part of a collaborative scheme to police the A417 and A419, a major route link between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. This road is a major accident hotspot, and so police hope that the new camera will help not only to reduce collisions but help to reduce the dangerous, and sometimes collision causing driving.
Those who are driving in a potentially dangerous manner will be educated, while those who are driving illegally will be prosecuted.
Martin Surl, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gloucestershire, is hopeful that the camera will help to not only reduce the number of accidents in the area but also educate drivers on practices such as using a mobile phone behind the wheel.
Mr Surl said “This is one of the county’s busiest roads which also has one of the worst accident records due to the way it’s used.
Many people have come to me with their concerns about speeding and other safety issues along this road.
We now have a chance to test a new model of collaborative road policing which, if it proves a success, can be put into practice elsewhere.
The aim is not just to penalise motorists but to uphold the law by creating a change in people’s behaviour. But the police will enforce the law when necessary.”
Repeated across the country
If successful, more of these cameras could be rolled out across the country to help with more dangerous roads.
As seen at the top of this article, the person in the red car is driving at speed and incredibly dangerous. The police camera video footage, given to GlouscteshireLive by Mr Surl’s office, is from an incident on the A417 in January this year, captured by the new super camera, and was released to demonstrate it’s effectiveness. The driver of the red car, who was later prosecuted and fined for speeding, comes into view (top left of screen) in the outside lane and ‘shunts’ the car in front into the middle lane. You can see the red car driver remonstrate with the driver that he has just forced over In the top right corner you can see his speed is recorded at 93mph. The red car then begins to tailgate a second car, which crosses into its path.
At the end of this year, this ‘super speed camera’ along with other safety inducing methods, will be reviewed to determine their effectiveness along with their investment costs.
Safety reasons
As released in the latest Department for Transport documents, it was shown that over a quarter of people who died in road traffic collisions were not wearing a seatbelt, so the concern is well founded.
The number of people killed on the roads due to not wearing a seatbelt increased by 7% from 20% in 2016 to 27% in 2017. While not wearing a seatbelt carries a £100 fine, or £500 if taken to court, it places no points on a driving licence, unlike those who use a mobile phone behind the wheel or speed.
Just last week, we wrote an article showing that 46% of journeys conducted in the UK broke the speed limit last year, with 86% of 20mph limits broken.
Collaboration with both other forces and government bodies is the answer for Chief Inspector Mark Soderland, who believes that while the roads in England are some of the safest, there is always an opportunity to improve safety.
Mr Soderland said: “A core aim of the approach is collaborating wherever possible with other road safety stakeholders. The team has started with Highways England and the county council and is now approaching groups such as the Motor Insurers Bureau, The Institute of Advanced Motorists and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Authority to explore what opportunities there might be to work together and improve safety.
Criminality is also important to the operation. Having a police presence on a strategic road such as the A417 is also an excellent opportunity to prevent and disrupt criminals from entering the county. Hence the use of ANPR and intelligence briefings.
Officers have been instructed to stop any vehicle they deem appropriate to do so whether it is because of poor standard of driving, the condition of a vehicle, criminal intelligence-led enquiries or other intelligence like missing persons.”
Do you think that this is the right thing for the police to do? Would you like one of these cameras near you? Let us know below
Let’s face it, this will only be used for speeding offences, the police are obsessed, despite the statistics not backing up their claims that it’s the leading cause of accidents.
Lazy use of technology by lazy police leaders
and, at 93mph quite right too. But my old mum, at 36 mph , on a road that’s been steadily reduced over the years from national speed limit., when she’s off to see my dad in hospital. That sort of vindictiveness, is why ordinary people no longer side with the police.
Agree totally
If your mum is speeding, why does she not deserve to get caught? It makes no difference whether it is by a camera or by a policeman sat in a deck chair on the verge. The only difference is that the policeman is urgently needed elsewhere for work that cameras can’t do. Vindictive you say – really? I bet a lot of apprehended shoplifters (and worse) might consider the law vindictive too. What makes your mum, charming as I’m sure she is, think she is above the law?
I think you missed the main point that the road had had its speed limit steadily reduced over the years & too often this happens without any good reason.
How do you know it has been reduced to 30mph. Could it be that they have put up a 30mph speed limit sign? I suppose this is why the police are now acting as Optometrists and taking a driver’s licence away on the spot if they can not read a number plate at 20 metres let alone being able to see a speed limit sign.
Yep, I think they are buggering up the roads to make you use public transport. One bump an they use it as an excuse to knacker a good road. We had a man die who was 4 times drink drive, was running from police in a stolen car , 100mph plus crash. Now road was national is 40. Total bo#@ocks. He would have crash if it was a 40 cause he was already well outside of the law!
RUSS YOU missed the point a road that was once a 70 limit is now 30 WHY????
But in this instance would not a stern warning be more effective, slapping a fine on her is just the way to make her lose faith in the police.
You utter complete useless waste of life. Sad man Russ!
and abuse of speed limits i.e. when they are put where not justified by anything but making a cash generator causes what they call “speeding” – respect is not granted. respect must be EARNED. and v limit on motorways should be at least 80. Cars from 1920s were capable of reaching 70mph!
Why shouldnt we have speed limits like the French do, ~85 on motorways in the dry ~60 in the wet, and enforce them properly
when the UK steps up to mark and employs sufficient numbers of police officers and /or allows specifically trained MOTORWAY/ROAD patrol enforcement teams to monitor the tearaways who continue to disregard the law and continue to get away,
who is using my road fund tax ??
How wet does it have to be to be classed as wet? Who decides if its wet? What speed do you go if it’s just damp?
IN FRANCE ON MOTORWAYS IT IS 130KM WHEN IT IS NOT RAINING & 110KM WHEN IT IS RAINING. WET AND DRY ARE THE WRONG TERMS
You should decide, in driving to the conditions, this includes using lights as well in poor weather
It is an offence to use rear fog lights in the rain, heavy or otherwise, due to the glare they can cause. However, how many drivers use them under these conditions?
Steve, nothing to stop you and every other driver being sensible and slowing down in bad weather. Does it need police enforcement for drivers to be sensible?
Just look at the old duffers they make Transport Ministers!!!!
As you say, cars are much better engineered than they were in 1920. Drivers, though, are not! Why do you think it good manners to overtake others on the highway? Would you be so ignorant in the post office queue?
Perhaps because they are called overtaking lanes and provided for that purpose? If walking along the pavement and you come up behind someone walking very slowly would you not “overtake” them when there’s space? This is not the same as queuing.
An interesting point. In my area there are a number of dual carriageway sections which historically have been ‘national’ (70) limit. Recently these have all been reduced to 50 and yet there are sections of single lane roads between these which still have ‘national’ (60) limits which are far more dangerous.
BUT, drivers could exercise caution and not drive at the limit! Drive to the conditions!!!!!!!!!
Only dangerous if you don’t drive to the conditions.
Cars might have been capable of reaching 70, but could they do it safely? In any case, it’s not the cars, its the drivers who need to be capable of driving at the speeds modern cars allow.
How many drivers really are fully competent?
We all tend to think that all the others are idiots.
Drivers should think. Your modern car losses power in the fast lane doing 70mph. How good is the power steering now?
power steering does virtually nothing above 30mph. the extra stiffness in the steering is because you are having to overcome the drag of the hydrauclic fluid in a power steering system NOT because of the failre as such
I shall wear a burqa when driving. You say I am not allowed to just because I am a White male? You are being racist and sexist!
I prefer driving in nice summer frocks myself.
The road is dangerous, so let’s penalise the driver! Right, got it.
How about for once hov’t/police having the attitude of trying to HELP the driver
the road is NOT dangerous,only the bad guys who flaunt the law are dangerous,
the police are undermanned and underfunded and face brain dead nutters every day who drive without any respect,Did these people have parents or were they found in a rubbish heap?
They are trying to help! That is why speed limits are lowered because of accident statistics. Is it sensible to think that speed limit reductions are just arbitrary or to punish the motorist.
The Golf driver should have been warned about not indicating when changing lanes
The increase in speeding is purely down to a lack of police patrols
Afraid it’s not, it’s down to the drivers And let’s face it it’s the drivers inability to drive taking into all road conditions
Renyar, when I first started driving in the late ’60s there were far more Police Patrol Cars and Motorcycles on our roads plus Speed Cameras hidden behind anywhere the Police could do it. So one was a lot more careful when driving in built up areas or anywhere there were speed limits. If you were driving late at night or early morning you stood a good chance of being stopped just to check you were the owner of the vehicle and legally entitled to drive it.
Lots of my friends had at least one speeding fine within three months of getting a full licence and other offences such as defective tyres, defected exhaust, careless driving etc. The latter I mention can only be applied if you are stopped by Road Traffic Officers which at the time were plentiful
Worrying The intent seems to be NOT to obey the rules. Drive faster than limits. Use defective tyres. Drive without due care and attention.
That driving instruction and test was BS just to get a license. Now I can really disobey the rules!
Perhaps the rule should be “ break the rules and lose your license” sit another test to get it back.
Too draconian?
Lose it 3 times and your out!
Never work would it?
Safety at work dictates that accidents are investigated and measures put in place to prevent a similar accident from occurring again. But if those preventive measures are ignored then it can happen again. Good driving is like that, analyse mistakes and don’t do the same thing again. Bad driving ignores all of that.
Well your honour I was not responsible for driving my car that fast it was because there were no policemen! 😂😂😂😂😂
Kitty, to me this is a very poor quality article, headlining over a mile to then read a kilometer, then over half a mile, 8 km is 5 miles so its all somewhat different and then referring to criminals being caught, speeding etc is NOT a criminal offence. I want to hear about these things from you but with accurate facts, get these basics wrong and it makes me wonder how much else you are writing “fake news”.
Simon, it’s not exactly fake news. (Which is not a new thing anyway.) it’s petrol prices and their slack-a***d click-bait.
They trawl t’ Internet for sensational. 😂
Journalism is in fact ded and even spelling and grammar checks went out with the bath water too is seems.
Dead has an ‘a’ in it….
Moogle, I think it was deliberate.
…..and ‘it’ has a ‘t’ in it. Quote. . . . “with the bathwater too is seems.” Kettle and pot syndrome?
It certainly does, try dead instead of ded!
I was going to post the same. I read it as a mile away, then a kilometre. When I was at school a kilometre was 5/8 of a mile. I wish journalists would get their basic facts right.
When creating the article, there was a mistake made by our team which lead to the different headline on the article in comparison to the newsletter. Mistakes happen and we’ve rectified it as far as we can.
My view in business has always been if you put your name to something you should check it and make sure its right, if someone in the team makes a mistake they should be supervised sufficiently to pick up on it or put their own name to it and take the responsibility for it. Good that surgeons and pilots don’t work on the basis mistakes happen!
Thank the Lord we have folk like you patrolling the web to protect us. Unfortunately on this occasion, I was subjected to this appalling lack of responsibility from Petrolprices.com.
I will try to come to terms with the misrepresentation.
It gets worse though because if you watch the police video footage that also is “fake news”, the poor man inthe red car had people pulling out in front of him (not even indicating either) and by the standards of white van man on the M25 hardly kept up the “fag paper” distance required under the definition of tailgating.
He was driving like a prat but the drivers of the Mini and grey VW, now that is seriously bad. If its safety then I wonder when their bans start, it’s never about safety though is it. Its’s all about the money, always was !!!
Take another look, he does indicate before he pulls out of his lane, I can count 4 indicator flashes. Where are YOUR observation skills?
oh grow up & get a life steve, you’ll be takin uppers next lol, but try prozak 1st.
Clown
Pity some car drivers don’t operate by the same code then! Don’t they put there signature on the license?
So all bad drivers should be supervised then. Yhe get it on!
Oh and by the way some doctors and pilots occasionally make mistakes, sometimes they lose their license for it too.
It would be good if car drivers had the same record as doctors and pilots. Insurance would be cheaper!
Firstly get out of your office simon & get a life in the real world! Methinks pilots & surgeons earn a lot more than the petrol prices team! as for pilots & surgeons don’t make mistakes? i’d be careful what you say there cos I think theres quite a few survivors & relatives of dead people that might not agree with you, or don’t you watch the news or read newspaper?
Kitty, I think you meant ‘which LED to the different headline’
BTW, it’s “its effectiveness”.
I noticed that a slight error had been made but it didn’t detract from the information in the article. It sounds like a good idea to me now of course it remains to be seen whether it is used to it’s full potential and not simply seen as another way of collecting fines. It should automatically send a fixed penalty to anyone caught using a mobile phone with a letter telling them which police station to attend for an awareness course with a fine for non-attendance.
It should be be “its full potential”.
Does no one proof read? It’s sloppy.
It’s like a chef burning your toast.
Shouldn’t happen.
It’s “anyone” not “no one” did you not proof read?
Kitty, agree mistakes happen. Pity most of the commenters here don’t make mistakes! Or do they? Seems they break the laws of the road by mistake. They certainly aren’t responsible that’s clear.
Kitty, As some sort of a journo, you really need to brush up your grammar/proof reading. It’s with the apostrophe is a contraction of it is or it has; it never means ‘of it’. Also ‘lead’ in your reply should be ‘led’.
Kitty, as far as we’re concerned theres no need to apologise whatsoever, as the old saying goes, “we are only human” & far worse, “im only a man pmsl”. XXX
This is UK. Should be miles!
Does it really matter…the fact is the police now have an even more accurate piece of technology which will catch you. My worry is, it will probably mean a less Police presence on the road. A police car driving up and down is always a good deterrent.
dunno ware u went 2 SKOOL gillian but all u gotta do is ask yer smart fone wyle yer drivin wiv ya cofy in der uva hand an it wil tel ya 100 kph is 62mph, ask ne lory driva not truk cos dare yanks! C, esy . me n me wyf bof used to dryv lorys an evan she new dat /:-)
Speeding is a criminal offence, as defined under RTA 1988
Is Speeding A Criminal Offence?
If dealt with by way of a Fixed Penalty Speeding will not be dealt with as a criminal offence. Effectively you are being made an offer to settle the matter without recourse to the courts by simply accepting 3 penalty points and £100 fine. Is speeding a criminal offence? Not if you pay the Fixed Penalty within 28 days. No conviction is recorded against you and you do not need to concern yourself with having a criminal record.
Partial right then …………………. it can become one!
It is a criminal offence driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs . Or with no insurance or licence. Now all the above is just conjecture by me as I am assuming they are criminal offences. Do you agree yes/no
Well said simon
I bet the new camera is not used for the more than 50% of motorists that sit in their lane leaving lanes 1 and 2 almost empty, nor those that then leave it to the last few hundred yards to then force their way across multiple lanes causing significant and severe braking by those who are in the way or behind..
Of course, there then those who just drive like they own the road with no signalling etc…
Geoff, I did a snap survey near where I live regarding direction indicators of vehicles. In a 2 hour sitting I counted nearly 50% of vehicles do not indicate what direction they are going in with the most frustrating being at roundabouts.
Sheer laziness and selfishness.
Alan, the roundabout one is my pet hate too. People indicate right yet go straight on or fly round at 80mph when you can’t see for the idiot council that put a big bush in the middle, then beep at you like you knew he was on for a land speed record!
The headline is wrong! It’s 1 kilometre not 1mile! Let’s get it right please.
It would be nice to see such determination being used to cut more serious crime like stabbings, muggings, burglary, theft from vans etc. The problem is the police/government don’t earn any money from that!
And they find it difficult to solve crimes without the aid of the public
correct. they dont earn money and it entails work. friend of a friend was having his farm burgled. police told him that they couldnt get anyone out there (the burglars were still on site) for at LEAST 2 hours. so farmers wife phoned and said there were poachers (or hare coursers or something, i foget exactly which) and within 10 minutes, there were 2 patrol cars, a riot van and a helicopter above the farm!
Too difficult, it’s easier to catch “criminal” motorists
I was on the German autobarns two years ago doing 140mph (legally) and didn’t see one accident. Speed does not kill. What I did notice is lane discipline , if not overtaking they move over (no lane hogging) to near side lane and always indicate using mirrors. I feel in UK the motorist is the easy cash cow target. I also am a owner of a van which you will see more and more break ins to steel tools but nothing is happening to prevent this, because it means real police work and no money at the end of it. Also god for most crime.
Speed is not the main cause of accidents, it is not know what speed is safe for the conditions, most people drive with at least the max speed as a target and do not consider, traffic density, weather conditions, not allowing enough time for the journey etc
I would go further and say its no so much the speed, but the lack of distance drivers tend to leave between themselves and the car in front. Most people seem to drive so close as to not have any time to react.
Well this camera should help then if it’s going to pick up tailgating. Saying that tailgating seems to be a much bigger issue in France when i’m driving there but i rarely come across accidents.
They’ll use ‘tailgating’ or some other such altruistic notion as the motive for the use of this new camera, in reality it will be just another way to gather money from some poor, unsuspecting driver who’s doing 45 in a 40 zone on an empty road in perfect conditions because he/she is concentrating on the road and not fixated on his/her speedometer as the speeding pedants would prefer. I’m not a gambling man but I’d be willing to wager that in the first year of use there will be less than 1% of all convictions brought due to this new tool due to anything other than speeding.
Jeff, the bottom line is, there are rules and regulations to adhere to if you are driving. If you break them you know the consequences, so don’t bleat about it………..SIMPLES!
So don’t do 45 in a 40 zone, anyone who has to keep looking at their speedo to maintain a steady speed shouldn’t be on the road.
Am I tailgating when some idiot pulls out into the gap I’d left between me and the car in front whilst doing 20mph less?
I generally try to maintain a car’s length gap for every 5 MPH I’m doing but it’s almost impossible as invariably someone will pull into that safe space. Too many people confuse driving fast with driving well and safely. As for the grammatical errors in the article , as it doesn’t detract from the message they don’t matter.
So you leave 14 car lengths while driving on the motorway? Yep people bound to pull into that.
I totally agree. . Its particularly annoying when driving on the the motorway ,when your in the overtaking lane ,and some idiot thinks he has the right to come past you in the middle lane ,and then quickly swerve into your path immediately in front of you, without the slightest concern as to your safety or any one else.They just seem to get it into their heads that you’re going slow and should pull over to let them be there . Not stopping to realize you cant go any faster because the volume of traffic in front of you is restricting you from overtaking. I ask myself ,why are most drivers so illogical about road conditions. I believe this is what causes so many accidents . Not just Speed . Speed is perfectly ok if driven in the correct manner..And if the vehicle is fit for driving at higher speeds. . Also , the sanity of the driver comes into play with a lot of accidents. And then again ,there are far more people taking drugs than we really know about, who shouldn’t be driving.Perhaps the driving test should include some evaluation of the drivers mentality and fitness to drive. Before being allowed on the roads. As somebody once said . A man will spend a fortune learning how to fly. But wont spend another penny to learn how to drive properly and safely. Its just a means of getting from A to B for some people.
Having a nice big touchscreen in your car these days is a joke. Too many distractions. You can read your text messages as you drive. Sheer stupidity.
Good point….too much technology in the car and people thinking they’re invincible in their 5 star n pact safety rating vehicles.
Agree. They also I believe have to stop to let pedestrians cross when turning into a minor road which surprised me in Munich. Whereas here even if waiting at a zebra crossing many drivers will not stop. My wife waited while 6 cars drove past without thinking of stopping & I was nearly run over on a zebra crossing because the driver had turned round to speak to a passenger behind as he approached me.
Saying that the police & councils use the motorist as a cash cow to cover their ever increasing bureaucracies.
If a pedestrian only stands next to the zebra crossing, drivers do not have to stop for them. Padestrians have to place one foot on the zebra crossing to indicate to drivers that they intend to cross. If a pedestrian has a at least one foot on a zebra crossing, drivers have to stop for them. However, good drivers will always slow down on approach to a zebra crossing and observe approacing pedestrians. It is considered courtous to stop ahead of a pedestrian placing their foot on the zebra crossing. The pedestrian also needs to consider approaching drivers and give them sufficient time to stop for them. I see cyclists, mobility scooters and running pedestrians using zebra crossings; they too need to take responsibiltiy for their own safety and consider drivers.
Some pedestrians are absolutely in a world of their own, texting and walking carelessly onto a crossing without a care in the world. They do not even acknowledge the driver of the car that had to stop for them.
Highway Code rules 18-30 you have to stop for them. They are advised not to enter the crossing until vehicles have stopped. Good advice judging by most of the comments here.
Oh and by the way do drivers acknowledge when pedestrians don’t step onto the crossing when the driver has no intention to stop.
You can be inconsiderate when driving a metal box after all how many times have you heard of pedestrians killing drivers or damaging cars on crossings.
I find some car drivers inconsiderate when approaching crossings. They stop on the crossing and make it difficult for pedestrians to cross when the walk sign illuminates, they drive too fast approaching crossings, they overtake in the zigzag zone , all these things are about good driving with respect for other road users including pedestrians.
Yet more bulls**t, as some people on here demonstrate clearly it’s not speed that kills but idiotic drivers that endanger other road users.now I drive a van and leave enough gap Infront of me to brake sufficiently if the vehicle in front has to take some sort of evasive action.yet time after time I get retarded drivers who feel the need to sneak into that gap IV left as a safety zone.they are imbeciles who have no regard for who is in front or behind them.when this happens I am made out to be the tailgater and bad driver not the idiot who has just tried to get in a gap that doesn’t safely exist
except pedestrians never read the highway code…. unless they are a driver themselves.
Do any of you drivers actually know what the ‘Zig Zags’ , that took the place of the ‘old studs’ are for, or do you think they are just to tell you not to park in them !?
The zigzag is to give motorists migraines. Or does it indicate you should not overtake the car nearest the crossing?
The “zig-zag lines have several functions. Vehicles must not park on them, no vehicle may overtake within the lines, even bicycles undertaking on the inside, pedestrians must not cross on the lines but on the crossing only. It is the responsibility of the driver to look for pedestrians waiting to cross and the responsibility of pedestrians to be aware of vehicles. If a pedestrian has a foot on the crossing a motorist should stop but only if it is safe to do so, likewise any pedestrians should not cross unless it is safe to do so
Ah yes perfectly correct. The pedestrian killing machine strikes again.
The headlines “ car destroyed by impatient pedestrian at zebra crossing”
I agree pedestrians should be sensible and not step out in front of careful drivers , pedestrians should only step out in front of careless drivers. Better chance of being run over
Or should pedestrians just wait at the bit of road called a zebra crossing, which I understood to be technically “ footpath” for a nice motorist with nothing better to do than be courteous and stop for a pedestrian.
And the pedestrian had better thank the motorist for not driving over what is technically footpath to let the pedestrian use it.
If the zebra crossing is road then vehicles have the right of way, but everything I read says pedestrians have the right of way and drivers should be prepared to stop. Does that not make the zebra crossing technically footpath?
I find this really bizarre.
Some drivers are in a world of their own too, phoning, texting, fiddling with sat nav or radio, not looking forward when moving forward. It’s ok you are in a protective box best outcome you don’t hit anything, second best outcome you damage a car, worst outcome you injure or kill someone with your car! After all driven badly it is a weapon. If the police treated it as such then perhaps we would see less impatience on the road.
if A pedestrian had a battle tank around them and were approaching a crossing would you stop?
Now look at it from the pedestrians point of view, the driver has a battle tank around him and unfortunately some people drive with that attitude.
However, last time I looked they were called pedestrian crossings doesn’t that mean pedestrians have the right of way?
How much time do you lose on your journey by stopping at a pedestrian crossing?
Sounds like the argument that sailor used about power gives way to sail before sailing across the front of a supertanker and getting hooked up on the anchor and having to be rescued. He lost the case. Similarly pedestrians walking towards a zebra crossing do not always use it and often stand by one chatting away with no intention of using it. Stepping out at the last minute in front of a car when speed/distance means they have no chance of stopping in time is just plain stupid if not suicidal.
Who has the right of way on a pedestrian crossing?
You may be surprised to find out that pedestrians have the right of way here too when vehicles are turning into a side road. Not that anyone takes any notice.
The single dotted line on the minor road indicates that drivers should allow pedestrians priority in these circumstances. Right of way is now archaic, and does not apply, as it can give the road user the wrong mindset. The double dotted line governs traffic leaving the road.
Incidentally, all these catch the motorist schemes really only started because drivers are reluctant to follow the rules. They are , I the main, self inflicted.
Bin right of way, it is for rambles! Think priority!
You must use discretion when applying this advice. It is wonderful to be courteous and kind, but if a driver must decide whether to block a busy road potentially risking an accident, or to move clear into a side road and make a pedestrian wait a minute, the safe choice has to be clear the road.
Yep clear the road and make the pedestrian jump out of the way! The idiot behind is driving too close if he cannot stop! But you don’t want to damage your car so damage the pedestrian ! Much better choice!!!!!
The crosswalk can be marked or unmarked, but it must be at an intersection. Pedestrians generally have the right of way when they are in a crosswalk. However, pedestrians have a duty to yield the right of way to vehicles on the road if it is necessary to avoid an immediate hazard.
DUTY???????? To yield ?????
I would call it VERY SENSIBLE LIFE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUE.
IRRATE PEDESTRIAN DESTROYS CAR AT CROSSING!!!!!!!!
Pedestrians have a duty of care for their own body, drivers have no such responsibility for pedestrians.
Pretty sure this was also a requirement in the UK Highway Code, when I passed my test?
Actually the highway code states that only learner drivers have to stop of someone is stood as a zebra crossing. It states if you have your licence you do not have to stop for a pedestrian at a zebra crossing until they step into it. Stupid in my opinion but that’s what it says.
I agree, stupid. Only an idiot would trust most of the drivers on this site to stop if they put a foot on the crossing. Probably get it run over anyway!
And of course once you attain the giddy heights of a full license it is only so you can stop learning!
I would much rather have them milk this cash cow, correctly, than the only possible alternative of putting up taxation.
could not agree more , experienced exactly the same
Michael you mean autobahns an owner steal
German motorists do have better lane discipline, but woe betide you if you are in lane 1 of a two lane autobahn, stuck behind a slower vehicle. You can indicate to yourh heart’s content but nobody in lane 2 will slow down to allow to overtake. Theyd also don’t obey speed limitsw here they exist either.
I agree, spend on it’s own is not the danger. It’s the undertaking, lane weaving and tail gating that are the biggest dangers.
Also, constantly changing lanes on two lane dual carriageways when both lanes are congested. All this achieves is grinding both lanes to a halt.
The reason the sensible people doing 120kph move over is that those doing more than 200 kph cannot stop in time.
I would like to see those doing 200kph plus on uk highways during rush hour!
IMPOSSIBLE
How do you indicate using mirrors?
Delusional gibberish
Maybe you meant “autobahns”.
Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, good to catch those who think they are above the law.
Like John Charles de Menezes? He didn’t have anything to hide, didn’t think he had anything to worry about, right up until the moment he head his head blown off by hollow point bullets.
We should all be concerned about how all of this “surveillance for our own good” could be used by future regimes that may not be so benign. We are sleep walking into a nightmare.
John Charles de Menezes was challenged by armed police at the entrance to the underground whilst carrying a Rucksack. He then jumped over the barrier and ran down to the platform and onto the train where he was challenged again and did not comply with the officer’s commands and we all know what happened next.
Maybe, Lawerence, you should think what you would have done had you been one of the officers involved having to make a split second decision as to whether or not John Charles de Menezes was carrying a bomb and about to detonate it.
Hindsight showsJohn Charles de Menezes had stayed in this country beyond his visa and this is the reason he ran, so he did have something to hide, not worth dying for, so why did he not conform.
What you also have to take into consideration is the amount of terrorist activity there had been around the time of this unfortunate incident.
What your comment has to do with “Long Range Cameras” on the UK road network is farcical.
Menezes entered the tube station at about 10:00am, stopping to pick up a free newspaper. He used his Oyster card to pay the fare, walked through the barriers, and descended the escalator. He then ran across the platform to board the newly arrived train. Menezes boarded the train and found one of the first available seats.
Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed Menezes onto the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three passengers between Menezes and himself. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with his left foot, and shouted “He’s here!” to identify the suspect’s location.
According to the Home Office, he arrived in Britain on 13 March 2002, on a six-month visitor’s visa. After its expiry, he applied to stay on as a student, and was granted permission to remain until 30 June 2003. The Home Office said it had no record of any further correspondence, but added: “We have seen a copy of Mr Menezes’ passport, containing a stamp apparently giving him indefinite leave to remain in the UK. On investigation, this stamp was not one that was in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on the date given.” This was denied by the family of Menezes, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that he believed Menezes was living in the UK legally, but had no precise information to confirm this.[3] Immigration records show that Menezes entered the Republic of Ireland from France on 23 April 2005. There are no records to show the exact date that he returned to the UK; under the Common Travel Area system, a foreign citizen entering the UK through the Republic of Ireland has an automatic right to remain for three months. Therefore, Menezes was lawfully in the UK on the day he was killed.[4]
Not sure where you are getting your story from Zoggie. The police maybe? Looks like he was lawfully in the country and didn’t go jumping over any barriers as he wasn’t challenged.
And I mentioned it because of the stupid “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” comment. None of us know how all the date collected on us could be used in the future or what we may need to hide or fear.
Lawrence, your comment re de Menezes is irrelevant though I agree we are too accepting of the argument that restrictions of our liberty is for our own good, this is the argument of every dictatorship, and these measures could all too easily be used by a less benign regime.
RGOG, while I agree that the comment made by Lawrence is not relevant to this particular article, it does highlight what the police can get away with these days. What Lawrence didn’t mention is that de Menezes was allowed to board a bus to the tube station, despite supposedly being a suicide bomber. The police commissioner also lied through his teeth about how his officers had dealt with the situation, and the courts ensured that no police personnel were ever prosecuted in any way. In 2006, they ruled that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to prosecute the police, and in 2008 the jury were barred from returning an ‘unlawful killing’. Seven bullets to the head at point blank range, and they get away with it as a case of ‘mistaken identity’! Let’s hope for everyone’s sake that these super duper new cameras that can catch you up to a kilometre away get a nice crisp focused view of your face.
Let’s all constantly watch our speedometer rather than the road ahead, that must be safer, surely?
Yes it would be nice to educate the middle lane drivers as thi causes the most frustration and traffic hold ups on the roads!!!!!
Lane joggers, hgvs that just pull out ! Drive hgvs and wonder how the hell
Some of these guys got their licences and even keep them
What do you mean just pull out? You’ve obviously never driven one, I could start to pull out long before you even get near me and wouldn’t be out of the way by the time you do. I see this so much on roundabouts jerk car drivers who don’t look two feet in front of the bonnet of their cars, and drive around roundabouts like it’s a race track if they drove sensibly none of it would be an issue! But no most of you are too busy driving at a thousand miles an hour while hiding your phones down between your right leg and the door so you can stay on Facebook.
ok so what about the morons on dual carriageways that KNOW they are limited to a MAXIMUM of 56MPH, that pull out to overtake ANOTHER HGV who is ALSO limited to 56mph and holding EVERYONE ELSE up for MILES??n i followed one such scenario and for one group of HGVs to pass the other, i and many others were held up for in excess of 5 MILES. yes you are doing a job. so am i. but i am NOT limited to 56mph. so why hold EVERYONE up just so that you can get in front of a HGV (that in a case only TODAY took them over a MILE to pass) that you can only travel the same speed as? there have been instances on the A1 where a HGV has pulled out to overtake, then entered a HGV no overtaking zone (they cant use the right of the 2 lanes, they HAVE to remain in the left lane only) but STILL they carry on! (how do you think i know it took these 2 today over a mile to pass each other?)
Nice one mike, you an me put up with these complete pratts on a daily biases, like today not 2 hours ago, I indicated to pull out waited for car to pass, impatient man behind put his foot down trying to push past ended up driving on grass. The ones that won’t get up to speed of 50mph on country lanes but want to get in front of you? Were did they get a licence from?
Hmm, long range cameras for safety reasons?
How about some short rang cameras showing the incredibly dangerous conditions being generated by “smart motorways” reducing speed limits for no good reason, so all the vehicles are tightly bunched up together?
Cars completel unable to get ahhead of heavy lorries that are forced to pull out into them…
The M1 has been closed almost daily due completely to this new phenomenon… No speeding, just very dangerous policy making!
if they spent more time catching real criminals and not using this cash cow on wheels and also indicators are standard issue on vehicals so use them and move over when someone is coming on to a duel carrige way or motorway …
how come that a lot of cars are able to drive without the use of indicators or is it that the driver lacks direction or has memory loss ,wondering where the controls are located.
Maybe the sight of a flashing light was last seen when clubbing in Amsterdam and the driver is now too embarrassed to recall the experience of a winking light?
It seems to me that many cars,, including brand new ones, don’t have turn indicators fitted any longer.!
You know it’s the person joining the dual carriageway or motorway that has to feed in appropriately. Too many people think they have right of way when joining a motorway and just swan out into the traffic expecting everyone else to get out of their way.
Bin the right of way mindset. Highway code states ^priority ^ . Sadly non readers do not know this, hence the different attitudes we experience. Right of way can cause the ^I am coming through mate^ attitude, when problems occur.
No video.
Click on the red highlighted ‘top of this article’ and you will be able to see it.
Thanks Dre, found it!
Another “Scam” by lazy patrol officers, they need to combat real crime, pathetic.
Agreed, our police are lazy and don’t bother to investigate real crimes like burglary.
So the document thumbnail heading states over a mile away, the document title says over a kilometer away, and in the document it says half a mile (0.8 km)… So which is it? Seems like a scaremongering exercise to me…
hi , I have untill recently lived in Mary Tavy 4 miles north of Tavistock on the A386 . Even though there is a 30 limit through the village many drivers exceed this way beyond 40 . There is a virtual foot path in parts ( a painted white line ) and waking can be a frightening thing .
Over my time living there i have whitnessed several cars overtaking even as they approch the zebra crossing. I often wondered how long it would be before a fatality.
When are they going to do something about drivers who don’t stop at ref lights. Or are they advisory only now?
Like in Italy, traffic lights just a suggestion.
Probably trying to beat cyclists doing the same thing
GREAT ! Instead of IMPROVING THE ROAD lets nick more motorists (Which would not be quite so bad IF the money was used to improve the roas!)
Adam, so how would you improve the road in such a way as to stop drivers such as the one in the video from driving in such an aggressive, selfish and dangerous manner
If so many people are speeding then could it be that the speed limits have been lowered too far? The safest way to drive is with eyes on the road ahead & driving to the varying conditions that you see, NOT with eyes glued to the speedometer trying to keep below an ever lower number to avoid breaking the law.
Is it not accepted wisdom that it is safest to drive at the speed of the other traffic? If they’re all speeding it’s safest for you to also speed. It becomes really dangerous when the Highways Agency put up 50 MPH advisory limits on a clear road with good visibility because there’s been (or previously was) an accident somewhere ahead. Some drivers will immediately slam on the brakes although there’s no visible hazard (other than the sign) whilst others will use their common sense and observation to wait until they can actually see a reason to. That in itself can cause accidents 🙁
“Glouscterhsire”
Not all the letters and certainly not in the right order. Ffs.
A number of people in this thread seem to be trying to justify the offending driver’s actions by complaining about ‘lane hogging’. I know the Highway Code suggests that all lanes other than the inside one are ‘overtaking’ lanes, but the reality is that the best use of our road capacity is for everyone to be doing close to the relevant speed limit in ALL lanes for most of the time. You see this a lot on Freeways in the USA and you also see ‘undertaking’ in these circumstances but usually at low relative speeds so this does not cause a problem. To me the most dangerous thing I see (apart from people like the ‘entitled’ driver of the red car), is those drivers who constantly swap from one lane to the other , sometimes going from outer to middle to inside then back again, in a few seconds. in the belief that this is somehow safer than simply doing a constant speed in one lane.
As for the whole debate about speed limits, it appears that the current 70mph limit was introduced in the early 60’s and has remained unchanged since then. Driving a car of that era at 70 mph would be far more dangerous than driving a modern day vehicle at higher speeds, so it does beg the question as to why these limits have not increased. I suspect the answer is that human nature means many people routinely drive around 10% above the set limits and that generally speaking this is ignored by law enforcement as it does not constitute a real danger. On the other hand if the posted limits were increased then people would still exceed those (and so on, and so on) so this approach is self-limiting.
The Highway Code says you should move back into the left hand lane once you have completed your overtaking manoeuvre, and in the UK undertaking is illegal except in slow moving queues of traffic. We are not in the USA!
Fine as long as the results are used with common sense and realism, and not £ signs.
We have enough signs already 🙂
Great I endorse this technology used especially on the few drivers that gesticulate threateningly. tailgate and when forcing a driver to pull over then swerve back in front clearing the victim by a narrow margin. It should be a points loss for offences like not wearing a seat belt and using a cell phone.
One of the most frustrating things I find on motorways is the flashing speed limit lights on the overhead gantries where, as far as I can see, there are no roadworks, no obstacles on the road, no congestion, no anything. This can go on for miles. Most people just ignore these signs now although after my wife did one day, (she was caught doing 55 mph on a 50 mph restriction) I now adhere to the limits especially where the cameras are.
I suspect the traffic controllers are having a laugh and these exercises are just revenue accumulators.
It is common knowledge that when Motorway Speed Restrictions are switched on so are the gantry speed cameras and are aligned with whatever the restriction is displayed which is one reason so many drivers get caught speeding.
On the M42 south of Birmingham they are permanently set at 60 mph even when traffic is light. They are just unauthorised speed limits designed to raise money from motorists.
The headline here says a Kilometre, since when were our road distances metric, I though we are still on miles, but hey ho, another example of he writer sloppy journalism..
When creating the article, there was a mistake made by our team which lead to the different headline on the article in comparison to the newsletter. Mistakes happen and we’ve rectified it as far as we can.
I very much agree with this should have been out earlier, we need to crack down on the mobile phone drivers, Speeding dangerous drivers
I don’t suppose these cameras can spot those over the drink drive limit, those driving under the influence of drugs, those driving when tired, those driving trying to impress their mates that they are a budding Luis Hamilton etc etc… No just the easy targets. Yes it’s wrong to speed but there are also the reasons I have listed that are just as, if not more likely to cause a serious accident.
DaveB, Have to agree with you 100%, So due to a lack of funding. There needs to be a serious debate on how we fund the policing of our road network. I am sure most of the population would like to see more Traffic Cops on our roads acting as a deterrent and apprehending those drivers who commit offences as you described. It would mean an increase in taxes or cost-cutting in other areas unless the fines are increased to offset the costs plus all monies from fines are solely spent on increasing Traffic Police.
The main question is, are the population prepared to pay more taxes.
I would prefer to see the police investigating crimes such as burglary, mugging, knife crime, rape etc. But mostly they don’t, it’s much easier to prey on motorists.
Doesn’t the M4 and M5 go through Gloucestershire as well. Many a time I have travelled from Cardiff to Swindon on an empty stretch at 70 mph only to be suddenly overtaken by a car appearing from nowhere and disappearing ahead of me.
Such efective further financial attacks on the law abiding motorists make Uber ever more compelling. Above you quote prevent and disrupt criminals from entering the county! Surly you must mean aprehend criminals? This highly efective policing would be better used at the countries borders where the majority of the serious criminals enter!
It’s too difficult to catch proper criminals, the motorist is a far easier target for our lazy police force.
A good idea – the standard of driving in the UK leaves a lot to be desired. Some drivers think the speed limits do not apply to them – I am regularly overtaken, on Motorways, by cars travelling at over 90mph and the number of drivers who switch between under and overtaking is increasing.
And I regularly drive down an “A” road where the limit is 60 mph, and catch up cars meandering along at 35 mph. People who have to get somewhere for a certain time are then delayed and may well speed later to make up time. The driver doing 35 is just holding up everyone else and probably thinks they are contributing to road safety!
Yes there are a lot of these dead heads that drive every were at 40mph. I always laugh because when I spoke to one, my parents neighbour, I’ve had the displeasure of travelling behind him, he has 9 points for speeding! I couldn’t believe it, but I regularly follow um from national into 30 an they sail away into the distance as I slow to 30. Yes I speed, but only out of town or on motorway. Clean licence last 23 years.
Leo, undertaking is not illegal providing it is done under the speed limit and not dangerously and I would suggest only on motorways/dual carriageways.
Lane hoggers are the culprits here and are not abiding by the highway code that states that they should not be in the overtaking lane is there is no traffic on the slower lane.
Two problems. Get into the left lane then often difficult to get back out to pass the truck doing 55 or 60.
Those undertaking are just doing so in many cases to queue jump as mist often they pull back out into one of those gaps that sensible drivers leave as a safety buffer.
If you are undertaking to pull off at the next junction OK. If you are undertaking to jump the queue you are just impatient.
‘Over a mile away’, ‘over half a mile away’ ‘over a kilometre away’ – is proof reading a thing of the past?
So which one of the 3 distances quoted in your article is the correct one?
What red car at the top of the article?. Is it the car from which the photo is taken?
click on the link in red
If it’s to be used for tailgating, mobile phone users, untaxed/stolen cars and general bad driving etc. then fine, but as in all of these things, it will be turned into a massive cash generator, because priority will be the incessant police obsession with speed.
I agree completely
‘over half a mile away’, ‘over a mile away’, over a kilometre away’ – so which one of the 3 distances quoted in this article is the correct one?
Kitty Bates, who is credited with writing this article blames someone else for the mistakes, and is dismissive – ‘mistakes happen’
Mistakes wouldn’t happen if you check an article before publishing it.
It may not matter to the writer, but these glaringly obvious mistakes do make me question how many of the facts in the article could also be incorrect.
So what is the range of the camera?
Is it “over a mile” (1.6km), “up to” (ie less than) 1km, over half a mile (0.8km), or some other distance?
Bear in mind you need a suitably straight road and good weather conditions, otherwise no camera will give you that range.
They must have changed it in the last few minutes because the headline says “New cameras to spot drivers over a kilometre away” and the article says ” A new police camera that can catch motorists from over half a mile away unveiled by Gloucestershire police…”
So, as a kilometre is about 5/8 of a mile, it is more than half a mile.
Discussion seems to have lost point. We already have an issue locally of speed traps (words deliberate) placed so you could be caught speeding outside speed restriction area by a camera in the area. Speeds suggest motorists are slowing but caught before the limit applies. If police can use a camera with 1 km distance how do we know speed recorded is in the restricted area. Recently looked at criteria for positioning of cameras and in many cases the criteria are out of date so no longer pertinent so should be no speed camera. Criteria failure is not a reason to remove penalty only mitigation. Most are cash cows and generally only catch unwary or strangers. With decreasing speed limits on safe roads more likely to e caught with no good reason.
“Those who are driving in a potentially dangerous manner will be educated, while those who are driving
illegally will be prosecuted. ” I wonder how many people will be “educated” as opposed to those who will be fined?
Drivers are already educated that is how you pass your test and become a licensed driver. Pity some people forget what they are taught.
Biggest failing of the driving instruction and test, patience is not a requirement.
None, it’s just a way of raising revenue
Who writes this rubbish? The headline states that cameras can see over a mile yet the text says “up to a kilometre”. 1 K = 0.625 miles.
I think its a great idea! There are so many idiots on the road who just dont care who they inconvenience. There are many bullies on the roads as well as criminals. Oh btw, there is no video or picture showing “A red car”.
click on the link
I think its a great idea! There are far too many idiots on the roads. There are many bullies who use their cars as weapons as well as criminals.
Just other cash cows? They are over the top. most drivers are trying to keep their eyes on what’s going going on in front and around them and we where not born with a middle eye to watch the speedo 🤔.
I am not arguing with, or criticising the content ot intent of the article but reference to film of an incident would be more appropriate if the film was included, plus the entire article could do with being edited and spellchecked!!
click on the link in red
The film is there. It is in a small box on the right hand side. Click on this and you will get the video. It took me a while to find it.
It’s a bit they can’t use the technology to catch unruly, aggressive or violent scroats in town centres first rather than just going after the money.
More c**p from the ‘filth’ , who have no money but always seem to find plenty for this sort of thing and investigating ‘hate’ crime. Just another money spinner for the pigs.
Excellent news, anything to penalise those who break speed limits or drive dangerously must be excellent for the rest of the world’s safety.
Speed limits are arbitrary and should depend on various things – road conditions, traffic conditions, visibility etc. You wouldn’t drive past a school at 30mph when pupils are arriving/ leaving even if it’s legal but it’s probably quite safe to do 35-40mph during the school holidays/weekends and other times when conditions allow and are safe. It should be a matter of the motorists’ judgement not a case of blindly following the law.
Whats happened to “good honest policing” the authorities are so reliant on tech the human side is gone.
Good honest policing was when the police said you were driving dangerously and the judge took their word. Lawyers got the better of good honest police So now only video evidence is good enough.
I’m going to unsubscribe very soon. The headline is “over a mile away ” but the article says “up to half a mile” so very far apart! Why is it that media organisations can’t stick to the facts?
They must have changed it in the last few minutes because the headline says “New cameras to spot drivers over a kilometre away” and the article says ” A new police camera that can catch motorists from over half a mile away unveiled by Gloucestershire police…”
So, as a kilometre is about 5/8 of a mile, it is more than half a mile.
Another excuse to garner funds under the “safet” banner. Disgusting.
Goodness me, there are an awful lot of angry and aggrieved people on here. Well I suppose it better you’re all on here venting your little spleens than actually being on the road doing it as there are plenty of ar***ole drivers around already who think they’re great/safe/considerate drivers (and that the bad drivers are the ones that don’t automatically let them pass, as it’s THEIR road).
Unless of course you’re posting while driving…………………..although I’m sure if you are it’s OK as you’re great drivers and could probably cook a meal and do a crossword while bombing down the hard shoulder with one arm out of the window.
People are angry because revenue gathering activities are disguised as “safety”.
Another tool for the surveillance state, not to mention stealth taxes on the motorist by way of fines.