Almost 2m speeding tickets a year adds up to an estimated £115.2m a year.

[Park Life 71]

They should have one special day a year when people are allowed to speed.

[Fop 1]

Given that it has no effective speed limit (on national speed limit roads) and the huge influx of bikers, yeah I'd say it does (and pretty much proves your point as completely BOLLOCKS ). Especially when you further consider the type of roads and conditions there.

 

Of course the reality of the situation has nothing to do with it, you just want to "argue" (very badly) with me.

 

Given that you started the topic I foolishly assumed you wanted a discussion on it.

 

Yep, but bullshit isn't discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned.

 

Have you even driven on IOM? Given that it only has a few hundred miles of road and some of the least busy roads you could find at that, I'd say it's bollocks to even bring the place up as a comparison. You can drive from one side of the island to the other and barely see another car.....yet still it's fatalities are high.

 

I've lived there, have you?

And rubbish you can drive from one end to the other without seeing a car (maybe at 3am), clearly you've never even been there. And again causalities aren't high at all given the influx of bikers and other tourists, not to mention that the roads themselves are very, very tricky (lots of very bad roads with cliff drops and bad/blind corners and such) and the conditions can be very, very treacherous (very easy for a road to be generally clear of ice, yet drop into a dip and suddenly the road is sheet ice), given that is a very unforgiving place to drive or ride it is amazing the casualty rates aren't much higher.

 

And yet no real carnage, in fact if you look at Cumbria it has one road casualty per 1050 of its population and the IOM has one per 990 people (should probably be closer to 1050 itself if you take into account yearly % of tourist population as well), which considering all the factors that should increase IOM road deaths just shows what bollocks your "point" is.

 

I've also lived in North Wales which again has some very nasty roads and very bad conditions, it also has had the most speed nazi chief constable around, and yet (when you take his very dodgy statistics massaging into account) their percentage drop is little more than the national average (and scarily the deaths and serious injuries of cyclists and pedestrians has actually increased, in once case by 70% in one year). In fairness the guy does tend to make his cameras very visible, so at least they are doing the job they are supposed to do, that is slow people down, not make cash.

 

So again whilst I'm not against speed cameras as such, I am very much of a mind of how they should be used and should not be used.

[Fop 1]

Be interesting to see the figures for road accidents in places where there aren't any cameras.

 

You see it all the time - people speed up to the point of the camera, slow down in time, and then speed off. Personally I think that causes more problems than it solves.

 

There does need to be a set speed limit, but as nearly every other country in Europe has proved, it can be higher than 70 on a motorway.

 

Of course, they could just stop all of these fines and put petrol up to more than the 108.9p a litre it is at the moment. Fucking wankers. If they gave me an alternative to get to work I'd use it, so why aren't they spending the money on that??

Don't know whether it's still the case, but up until last year County Durham was the only police force not to use speed cameras and they had the lowest accident rate per mile of road of any force in the country.

 

Trained, experienced traffic officers are a better safety device than any revenue camera. But of course they cost money rather than accumulating it.

 

Yep not unsurprisingly they also have had a higher level of traffic police too (although they did use speed cameras, just not fixed ones and not very many mobile ones).

 

 

 

 

Gawd I hate this subject nearly as much as I hate those that spout "dont speed and it wont be an issue" etc

 

I do a hell of a lot of motorway driving. The problem isnt speed, its tossers tailgating / undertaking / lane sitting for no reason. If everyone stuck to 70 you'd still get HGVs doing 55-58, still get the need to get past them and still get the idiots driving 5ft behind you no matter the road conditions.

 

It aint jusrt about speed, its general driving skills and lack of awareness.

 

For me, Id like to see some motorways increased to 80mph and more built up area's dropped to 20mph.

 

Yup, although a blanket 20mph in built up areas (as is being proposed by the Government presently) is a bit too far.

 

Same with speed cameras - it they are SAFETY cameras and not revenue cameras they should only be used in areas where they will make a difference and need to be seen to make sure people are doing the safe speed there.

 

Well yes, you cant grade all current 30mph built up zones the same. Given new housing estates have much smaller roads etc then they of course should be at 20, area's with schools or playfields (if theres any left). but some should stay as 30mph where there is more open space etc.

 

Aye, of course the issue with the new 20mph housing estates limits (which broadly are a good idea) is that the idiots that used to drive too fast still do drive to fast for those roads and those that didn't drive too fast in the first place.... well they still don't.

[Happy Face 29]

Given that it has no effective speed limit (on national speed limit roads) and the huge influx of bikers, yeah I'd say it does (and pretty much proves your point as completely BOLLOCKS ). Especially when you further consider the type of roads and conditions there.

 

Of course the reality of the situation has nothing to do with it, you just want to "argue" (very badly) with me.

 

Given that you started the topic I foolishly assumed you wanted a discussion on it.

 

Yep, but bullshit isn't discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned.

 

Have you even driven on IOM? Given that it only has a few hundred miles of road and some of the least busy roads you could find at that, I'd say it's bollocks to even bring the place up as a comparison. You can drive from one side of the island to the other and barely see another car.....yet still it's fatalities are high.

 

I've lived there, have you?

And rubbish you can drive from one end to the other without seeing a car (maybe at 3am), clearly you've never even been there. And again causalities aren't high at all given the influx of bikers and other tourists, not to mention that the roads themselves are very, very tricky (lots of very bad roads with cliff drops and bad/blind corners and such) and the conditions can be very, very treacherous (very easy for a road to be generally clear of ice, yet drop into a dip and suddenly the road is sheet ice), given that is a very unforgiving place to drive or ride it is amazing the casualty rates aren't much higher.

 

And yet no real carnage, in fact if you look at Cumbria it has one road casualty per 1050 of its population and the IOM has one per 990 people (should probably be closer to 1050 itself if you take into account yearly % of tourist population as well), which considering all the factors that should increase IOM road deaths just shows what bollocks your "point" is.

 

I've also lived in North Wales which again has some very nasty roads and very bad conditions, it also has had the most speed nazi chief constable around, and yet (when you take his very dodgy statistics massaging into account) their percentage drop is little more than the national average (and scarily the deaths and serious injuries of cyclists and pedestrians has actually increased, in once case by 70% in one year). In fairness the guy does tend to make his cameras very visible, so at least they are doing the job they are supposed to do, that is slow people down, not make cash.

 

So again whilst I'm not against speed cameras as such, I am very much of a mind of how they should be used and should not be used.

 

One side of my family is from the IOM so I go over there regularly, I asked for a manx flag on here...even provided the .jpg, but it's still not been forthcoming.

 

You've basically got a couple of built up areas and miles of hills between them. UK speed limits apply throughout the built up areas while between them, as I said, you barely see another car at any time of the day.

 

Why is my "point" bollocks if you see more accidents per person according to your stats? Wasn't even my point tbh, you're the one who brought up the IOM as a shite example of the perfect system that doesn't even compare.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

tbh

[Guest alex]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

 

Doing 40 in a 30mph zone in the middle of the day is dangerous, doing 40mph on the same stretch of road at 4am is likely not dangerous at all (and much less dangerous than say an police car or ambulance doing it during the day).

 

There's plenty of road I can think of where it is not dangerous to do 70-80mph on what is a 60mph road at more or less any time of the day (the conditions may make it dangerous, but then in bad enough conditions even 40mph would be dangerous).

 

If you've ever driven or rode on the Isle of Man you can see that arbitrary speed limits do very little for safety.

Obviously my post was a general comment rather than covering for every possible eventuality that can arise from being in control of a motorised vehicle. I'm just surprised that needed pointing out. Or maybe you were just looking for a pointless argument for a change

[Fop 1]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

 

Doing 40 in a 30mph zone in the middle of the day is dangerous, doing 40mph on the same stretch of road at 4am is likely not dangerous at all (and much less dangerous than say an police car or ambulance doing it during the day).

 

There's plenty of road I can think of where it is not dangerous to do 70-80mph on what is a 60mph road at more or less any time of the day (the conditions may make it dangerous, but then in bad enough conditions even 40mph would be dangerous).

 

If you've ever driven or rode on the Isle of Man you can see that arbitrary speed limits do very little for safety.

Obviously my post was a general comment rather than covering for every possible eventuality that can arise from being in control of a motorised vehicle. I'm just surprised that needed pointing out. Or maybe you were just looking for a pointless argument for a change

You may as well say don't drive or ride and you never will.

 

 

The issue in that example is that a police officer might offer leeway, where as a camera would not.

 

Although really it goes back to visible cameras and adequately posted speed notification, I can think of many places where a road comes to a small roundabout with a 60mph limit then continues on exactly the same type of road having changed to a 30mph limit with signs right on the roundabout (which is an incredibly stupid thing to have ON a roundabout 10-20m beyond it, fine, but ON a roundabout the last thing any sensible and safe driver should be looking for and looking at is a speed change sign). Hidden cameras on places like that would catch out most people that had never driven the road before, generating a lot of cash, but very little if ANY safety improvement at all.

[Guest alex]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

 

Doing 40 in a 30mph zone in the middle of the day is dangerous, doing 40mph on the same stretch of road at 4am is likely not dangerous at all (and much less dangerous than say an police car or ambulance doing it during the day).

 

There's plenty of road I can think of where it is not dangerous to do 70-80mph on what is a 60mph road at more or less any time of the day (the conditions may make it dangerous, but then in bad enough conditions even 40mph would be dangerous).

 

If you've ever driven or rode on the Isle of Man you can see that arbitrary speed limits do very little for safety.

Obviously my post was a general comment rather than covering for every possible eventuality that can arise from being in control of a motorised vehicle. I'm just surprised that needed pointing out. Or maybe you were just looking for a pointless argument for a change

You may as well say don't drive or ride and you never will.

 

No, that's totally different to what I said. Nice try though.

[Fop 1]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

 

Doing 40 in a 30mph zone in the middle of the day is dangerous, doing 40mph on the same stretch of road at 4am is likely not dangerous at all (and much less dangerous than say an police car or ambulance doing it during the day).

 

There's plenty of road I can think of where it is not dangerous to do 70-80mph on what is a 60mph road at more or less any time of the day (the conditions may make it dangerous, but then in bad enough conditions even 40mph would be dangerous).

 

If you've ever driven or rode on the Isle of Man you can see that arbitrary speed limits do very little for safety.

Obviously my post was a general comment rather than covering for every possible eventuality that can arise from being in control of a motorised vehicle. I'm just surprised that needed pointing out. Or maybe you were just looking for a pointless argument for a change

You may as well say don't drive or ride and you never will.

 

No, that's totally different to what I said. Nice try though.

 

Yup you said something totally unrelated to the issue as usual. Not really a nice try tbh, try harder.

[Meenzer 15873]

You guys!

[Guest alex]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

 

Doing 40 in a 30mph zone in the middle of the day is dangerous, doing 40mph on the same stretch of road at 4am is likely not dangerous at all (and much less dangerous than say an police car or ambulance doing it during the day).

 

There's plenty of road I can think of where it is not dangerous to do 70-80mph on what is a 60mph road at more or less any time of the day (the conditions may make it dangerous, but then in bad enough conditions even 40mph would be dangerous).

 

If you've ever driven or rode on the Isle of Man you can see that arbitrary speed limits do very little for safety.

Obviously my post was a general comment rather than covering for every possible eventuality that can arise from being in control of a motorised vehicle. I'm just surprised that needed pointing out. Or maybe you were just looking for a pointless argument for a change

You may as well say don't drive or ride and you never will.

 

No, that's totally different to what I said. Nice try though.

 

Yup you said something totally unrelated to the issue as usual. Not really a nice try tbh, try harder.

Explain how what I initially wrote was totally unrelated to the issue then. Good luck with that one.

Edited December 5, 2007 by alex

[Fop 1]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

 

Doing 40 in a 30mph zone in the middle of the day is dangerous, doing 40mph on the same stretch of road at 4am is likely not dangerous at all (and much less dangerous than say an police car or ambulance doing it during the day).

 

There's plenty of road I can think of where it is not dangerous to do 70-80mph on what is a 60mph road at more or less any time of the day (the conditions may make it dangerous, but then in bad enough conditions even 40mph would be dangerous).

 

If you've ever driven or rode on the Isle of Man you can see that arbitrary speed limits do very little for safety.

Obviously my post was a general comment rather than covering for every possible eventuality that can arise from being in control of a motorised vehicle. I'm just surprised that needed pointing out. Or maybe you were just looking for a pointless argument for a change

You may as well say don't drive or ride and you never will.

 

No, that's totally different to what I said. Nice try though.

 

Yup you said something totally unrelated to the issue as usual. Not really a nice try tbh, try harder.

Explain how what I initially wrote was totally unrelated to the issue then. Good luck with that one.

As I said; try harder.

[Guest alex]

Thought you'd struggle to answer that.

[Fop 1]

Thought you'd struggle to answer that.

Nope, you still need to try harder.

[Fop 1]

Given that it has no effective speed limit (on national speed limit roads) and the huge influx of bikers, yeah I'd say it does (and pretty much proves your point as completely BOLLOCKS ). Especially when you further consider the type of roads and conditions there.

 

Of course the reality of the situation has nothing to do with it, you just want to "argue" (very badly) with me.

 

Given that you started the topic I foolishly assumed you wanted a discussion on it.

 

Yep, but bullshit isn't discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned.

 

Have you even driven on IOM? Given that it only has a few hundred miles of road and some of the least busy roads you could find at that, I'd say it's bollocks to even bring the place up as a comparison. You can drive from one side of the island to the other and barely see another car.....yet still it's fatalities are high.

 

I've lived there, have you?

And rubbish you can drive from one end to the other without seeing a car (maybe at 3am), clearly you've never even been there. And again causalities aren't high at all given the influx of bikers and other tourists, not to mention that the roads themselves are very, very tricky (lots of very bad roads with cliff drops and bad/blind corners and such) and the conditions can be very, very treacherous (very easy for a road to be generally clear of ice, yet drop into a dip and suddenly the road is sheet ice), given that is a very unforgiving place to drive or ride it is amazing the casualty rates aren't much higher.

 

And yet no real carnage, in fact if you look at Cumbria it has one road casualty per 1050 of its population and the IOM has one per 990 people (should probably be closer to 1050 itself if you take into account yearly % of tourist population as well), which considering all the factors that should increase IOM road deaths just shows what bollocks your "point" is.

 

I've also lived in North Wales which again has some very nasty roads and very bad conditions, it also has had the most speed nazi chief constable around, and yet (when you take his very dodgy statistics massaging into account) their percentage drop is little more than the national average (and scarily the deaths and serious injuries of cyclists and pedestrians has actually increased, in once case by 70% in one year). In fairness the guy does tend to make his cameras very visible, so at least they are doing the job they are supposed to do, that is slow people down, not make cash.

 

So again whilst I'm not against speed cameras as such, I am very much of a mind of how they should be used and should not be used.

 

One side of my family is from the IOM so I go over there regularly, I asked for a manx flag on here...even provided the .jpg, but it's still not been forthcoming.

 

You've basically got a couple of built up areas and miles of hills between them. UK speed limits apply throughout the built up areas while between them, as I said, you barely see another car at any time of the day.

 

You clearly don't pay much attention then do you. If you stick purely to back roads you may not see that many cars (but then on said back roads you'll not be getting up much speed anyway), but the main roads are busy enough (not city busy, but at least as busy as similar roads else where in the country), and certainly during the general tourist season, never mind TT.

 

 

Why is my "point" bollocks if you see more accidents per person according to your stats? Wasn't even my point tbh, you're the one who brought up the IOM as a shite example of the perfect system that doesn't even compare.

 

Because the IOM has very nasty roads and very nasty conditions (which should result in higher deaths irrespective of limits), and has the large tourist and TT tourist adding to it, yet even with no speed limit on national speed limit roads, their accident rate isn't any worse than similar areas. Hence your "points" = bollocks.

 

Simple enough for you? Although given you clearly don't notice cars when you "go" to the IOM, maybe not simple enough.

[JawD 99]

You guys!

 

[Happy Face 29]

Given that it has no effective speed limit (on national speed limit roads) and the huge influx of bikers, yeah I'd say it does (and pretty much proves your point as completely BOLLOCKS ). Especially when you further consider the type of roads and conditions there.

 

Of course the reality of the situation has nothing to do with it, you just want to "argue" (very badly) with me.

 

Given that you started the topic I foolishly assumed you wanted a discussion on it.

 

Yep, but bullshit isn't discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned.

 

Have you even driven on IOM? Given that it only has a few hundred miles of road and some of the least busy roads you could find at that, I'd say it's bollocks to even bring the place up as a comparison. You can drive from one side of the island to the other and barely see another car.....yet still it's fatalities are high.

 

I've lived there, have you?

And rubbish you can drive from one end to the other without seeing a car (maybe at 3am), clearly you've never even been there. And again causalities aren't high at all given the influx of bikers and other tourists, not to mention that the roads themselves are very, very tricky (lots of very bad roads with cliff drops and bad/blind corners and such) and the conditions can be very, very treacherous (very easy for a road to be generally clear of ice, yet drop into a dip and suddenly the road is sheet ice), given that is a very unforgiving place to drive or ride it is amazing the casualty rates aren't much higher.

 

And yet no real carnage, in fact if you look at Cumbria it has one road casualty per 1050 of its population and the IOM has one per 990 people (should probably be closer to 1050 itself if you take into account yearly % of tourist population as well), which considering all the factors that should increase IOM road deaths just shows what bollocks your "point" is.

 

I've also lived in North Wales which again has some very nasty roads and very bad conditions, it also has had the most speed nazi chief constable around, and yet (when you take his very dodgy statistics massaging into account) their percentage drop is little more than the national average (and scarily the deaths and serious injuries of cyclists and pedestrians has actually increased, in once case by 70% in one year). In fairness the guy does tend to make his cameras very visible, so at least they are doing the job they are supposed to do, that is slow people down, not make cash.

 

So again whilst I'm not against speed cameras as such, I am very much of a mind of how they should be used and should not be used.

 

One side of my family is from the IOM so I go over there regularly, I asked for a manx flag on here...even provided the .jpg, but it's still not been forthcoming.

 

You've basically got a couple of built up areas and miles of hills between them. UK speed limits apply throughout the built up areas while between them, as I said, you barely see another car at any time of the day.

 

You clearly don't pay much attention then do you. If you stick purely to back roads you may not see that many cars (but then on said back roads you'll not be getting up much speed anyway), but the main roads are busy enough (not city busy, but at least as busy as similar roads else where in the country), and certainly during the general tourist season, never mind TT.

 

 

Why is my "point" bollocks if you see more accidents per person according to your stats? Wasn't even my point tbh, you're the one who brought up the IOM as a shite example of the perfect system that doesn't even compare.

 

Because the IOM has very nasty roads and very nasty conditions (which should result in higher deaths irrespective of limits), and has the large tourist and TT tourist adding to it, yet even with no speed limit on national speed limit roads, their accident rate isn't any worse than similar areas. Hence your "points" = bollocks.

 

Simple enough for you? Although given you clearly don't notice cars when you "go" to the IOM, maybe not simple enough.

 

What a div.

 

Do you even bother to read posts you're responding to? In built up areas (where I agree you see plenty of other cars) speed limits apply like anywhere else in the UK, so if you're suggesting we should follow the IOM there, it's bollocks. right?

 

As you say, only on the national speed limit roads is there no actual limit. These are the main roads, for example between Douglas and Ramsey. You'd be lucky if you saw 10 other cars while doing that journey, and even if you saw twice that, you'd never be up someones bumper because there wouldn't be anything coming the other way and you'd have overtaken immediately. The terrain on these roads is no different to plenty of the hilly roads in the uk, the only difference is the vastly reduced number of cars using them...so again following the IOM would be impracticle on our FAR busier roads.

 

Even with the low number of cars travelling those roads, the number of deaths on the island is higher. This might be because people are whizzing about everywhere at 120mph, or because the terrain is like nowhere else in the UK, it might be because deaths go through the roof on TT weekend (though they don't at all). Either way it still means your comparison is bollocks, because traffic on the island is in no way comparable to the UK.

 

You see?

[Fop 1]

What a div.

 

I wouldn't have said it, but yes you pretty much are (you clearly don't have a clue about traffic levels, and struggle greatly with counting cars).

 

Do you even bother to read posts you're responding to? In built up areas (where I agree you see plenty of other cars) speed limits apply like anywhere else in the UK, so if you're suggesting we should follow the IOM there, it's bollocks. right?

The limited roads are mostly the same as any town, however the big issue where speed should kill (and carnage should ensure) is the delimited roads, as you suggested, yet it doesn't.

 

 

As you say, only on the national speed limit roads is there no actual limit. These are the main roads, for example between Douglas and Ramsey. You'd be lucky if you saw 10 other cars while doing that journey, and even if you saw twice that, you'd never be up someones bumper because there wouldn't be anything coming the other way and you'd have overtaken immediately.

Again seeing only 10 cars from Ramsey to Douglas is highly unlikely unless you're driving at very off peak times, the sort of times you might drive down the northern M6 and not see a soul, or even the A1 between York and Newcastle occasionally.

 

 

The terrain on these roads is no different to plenty of the hilly roads in the uk, the only difference is the vastly reduced number of cars using them...so again following the IOM would be impracticle on our FAR busier roads.

Again utter rubbish, the sort of roads they are, are if anything much LESS busy in the mainland UK.

 

 

Even with the low number of cars travelling those roads, the number of deaths on the island is higher.

Even with the much higher number of cars (that you just don't seem to notice) statically in deaths and serious injuries per population it is no different to similar areas on the mainland.

 

This might be because people are whizzing about everywhere at 120mph,

There's not actually that many place you can do 120 mph, even on a bike. Maybe you haven't noticed on you "many" trips there, mind you all the "non-existent" () cars might have been blocking your views of the road.

 

or because the terrain is like nowhere else in the UK,

 

Actually it is very similar to parts of Wales, Scotland and Cumbria (I bet you haven't been there either )

 

it might be because deaths go through the roof on TT weekend (though they don't at all).

Indeed the ratio of that is NO higher than similar areas in the UK, and doesn't get raised that much by non-racing TT deaths (which is the opposite of your "point" ).

 

Either way it still means your comparison is bollocks, because traffic on the island is in no way comparable to the UK.

 

Again the IOM has worse roads, very treacherous road, similar levels of traffic (to similar areas) and no effective speed limit in nation speed limit zones.

 

And yet it has nearly the SAME deaths and serious accident ratio to population.

 

So as I said you're talking BOLLOCKS, your "points" are bollocks, you mythical visits to the mysteriously de-cared IOM are bollocks and your statements are bollocks.

 

So basically all you've said is...... bollocks.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

I see the Italians have recently raised the speed limit on their autostradas to 150kph (93mph) to improve traffic flow.

[Fop 1]

Speeding police 'not prosecuted'

By Martin Shankleman

BBC News

 

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding

Officers were caught speeding while on duty

Roadside camera photographs of South Yorkshire Police officers caught speeding, but who later had their cases dropped, have been obtained by the BBC.

 

The pictures were released after South Yorkshire's chief constable, Meredydd Hughes, was banned from driving for speeding at 90mph in a 60mph zone.

 

Those in cars caught on camera were all on duty but none was prosecuted after refusing to say who was at the wheel.

 

The force said cases were not pursued due to drivers not being identified.

 

Public interest

 

The pictures, obtained by BBC Newsnight under the Freedom of Information Act, all showed officers speeding - mostly in the Rotherham and Doncaster areas.

 

They were released following the intervention of the Information Commissioner, who rejected the force's reason for non-release.

 

The force had claimed that releasing the images was not in the public interest.

 

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding

Most of the officers caught were in the Doncaster and Rotherham areas

 

In one case it claimed that if the occupants of a speeding police van were identified because of publication, there was a "risk that those individuals will be vilified and as a consequence their mental or physical health will suffer".

 

But the commissioner rejected that argument, saying the information had been "inappropriately withheld" and that it was in the public interest for the material to be disclosed.

 

Overall, the BBC investigation uncovered 26 cases between 2003 and 2006, where South Yorkshire police officers caught speeding on duty failed to admit they were driving and cases were dropped.

 

'Due diligence'

 

A spokesman for South Yorkshire police said the cases could not go ahead because they had used "due diligence" in trying to identify the drivers and, because they could not be identified, a prosecution would fail.

 

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding

The force said releasing the pictures was not in the public interest

 

He added that procedures had now been reformed and earlier this year the chief constable had taken himself to court for failing to identify the driver of a speeding police car.

 

Mr Hughes, 49, a former chair of roads policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), apologised after being caught on camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone on the A5 at Chirk near Wrexham in May.

 

He stood down from his role at Acpo after he was summonsed for the offence, which happened when he was on holiday.

 

He was disqualified for 42 days and fined £350 by Wrexham magistrates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130028.stm

[Guest alex]

Do you only have a problem with speeding when the police do it then?

[Fop 1]

Do you only have a problem with speeding when the police do it then?

 

Nah it's like GBH, or murder, it's FINE when the police do it.

[Rob W 0]

just stay within the limits if you have a problem with speed cameras - really easy and cheap too

[Guest alex]

just stay within the limits if you have a problem with speed cameras - really easy and cheap too

That's what I said. Irrelevent to the issue though, apparently.

[Fop 1]

just stay within the limits if you have a problem with speed cameras - really easy and cheap too

That's what I said. Irrelevent to the issue though, apparently.

 

Yup and wrong as I mentioned anyway.