On the back of the three lovely photographs of me speeding at 31mph (I am thinking of entering them for the Turner Prize) it says "The Police do not receive any money from the fine imposed by the court."
So who does get the money, and how much?
I acknowledge that the limit has been there for a long time but not to my kno wledge been enforced before. I am totally in agreement with 20mph limits in built up residential areas but think they are unneccesary and indeed a cause of accidents through frustration in places such as Tower Bridge and the Rotherhithe Tunnel. Our Victorian forefathers were superb engineers and would be very sad that their structures are now thought to be so delicate that they have to be wrapped in cotton wool. In Paris there are several very old bridges over the Seine and I do not recall speed restrictions being imposed there. Possibly they use a higher quailty bitumen when resurfacing!
I agree with Hmeah - The limilts are ridiculous and are now only being enforced as a moneymaking exercise.
Paris does indeed have some very old bridges, but none of them as far as I know are bascule bridges. Perhaps we ought to investigate the axle limits and speed limits of comparable bridges in cities like Amsterdam.
The bascules are not structurally linked together (except a couple of locking bolts to align them), so whenever a vehicle passes from over the centre of the bridge, there is the shock stress of axle weight being transferred from one to another. The faster the vehicle, the greater those forces. The heavier the vehicle, the greater the forces.
It's a bit like the old punishment we used to receive at school: hold one arm outstretched and see how long you can hold your satchel for. Now imagine someone repeatedly removing the satchel and landing it back on your hand again.
The cameras on Tower Bridge are just the shape of things to come. The Southwark Mini-Zone cameras will have much the same capability and we will get them everywhere, town or country, motorway or B road.
When I was chatting to the contractors putting up the Mini-Zone camera structure in Tanner St, they said something quite interesting. They suggested that most cars manufactured today already carry a chip which can communicate with a roadside sensor. The manufacturers aren't obliged to tell us about this hidden delight.
So my question is, why are we, the roaduser/taxpayer paying for expensive physical installations when there are already the means to charge built into our cars and only waiting for much smaller roadside boxes to be installed?
Maybe the lovely mayor is the advanced guard of the charging process and the roadside sensor will seem much less intrusive in comparison to the Stalag towers currently being built.
Please do let us know the outcome, be interested to see how many points & how much the fine is. fair enough, i was speeding, i got a ticket... but what annoys me is i have been driving for over 10 years.. never had a driving conviction or any points.. i make a silly mistake & now treated like a criminal.. my insurance has gone up this year as i got a driving conviction.
I did not mind paying the penalty charge.. i was upset to receive 4 points! a fixed fine would just be fine.. let them have their money & stick it up their... X
I do think they should have signs up to indicate the presence of the cameras. If cameras are to protect the bridge, then they have to be a deterrent. It is no deterrent to catch Mrs Scroggins from the West Country on her first and last ever trip to London. The absence of camera signs suggests that the revenue (Mr Brown) is more of interest than protecting a monument.
I have to disagree on the Rotherhithe tunnel. It is - according to an EU (or AA, ioicrc*) the most dangerous road tunnel in Europe. No surprise with those bends. It was iirc built for pedestrian use - hence the large spiral staircase at the north end - so to expect it to be up to 30mph traffic is ridiculous IMHO, of course.
if only i could recall correctly...