seen them setting it up on the way into birkenhead, 10mins later on the way out it was operational.

Beaufort Road
down by the docks
near the house with the flag.

Google maps link to location

1st road I was done for speeding on in 1999.

Deserved it tbh.

I got pulled over there once by a van full of fuzz. I receieved a producer but they didn't give me a valid reason for pulling me over. On the documentation they gave me under headwear he wrote 'Spiky' ... wtf?

iv been pulled over there a few times, wasn't by the police tho

Stupid place to have a speed cam, there are loads of streets where kids are nearly getting knocked down every day, how many pedestrians cross there - almost none.

On the other hand if they have anpr, then that is a common route to insurance/tax dodgers.

sly b'stards are hyding in the back of council vans by the 6th form collage by birkenhead park

That's more like it. Nothing sly about it, if you do the crime, you pay the fine.

If you think its alright to be a criminal as long as you don't get caught then I can understand your viewpoint. Next you will be saying they can't arrest robbers unless they voluntarily walk into the police station.

there in claughton village all the time,Iv seen a traffic cop pulling cars coming out of tesco's car park, (night time)

Robbery isn't a victimless crime. Getting nabbed in a speed trap for doing 35 in a 30 invariably is (victimless, I mean). Apples and oranges, DD...

Speeding is not a victimless crime, people don't just lose a few of their worldly goods but they lose lives, friends and family.

When it is your child that is killed by speeding perhaps you may see it differently, how many deaths will it take to convince you otherwise?

Imagine being told that if the car had been doing 5mph less, then there was a reasonable chance your child might have survived or not been hit at all.

The same old crap yet again A crime is a crime. You'd soon be up in arms if one of your kids/family/friends were hit and seriously injured or killed by a car doing 35mph in a 30mph limit area and be demanding that the Police did something about it.

They enforce the law, they don't make it. If you don't want the ticket, don't speed.

Simples!

Snap!

Read it again? I said "Getting nabbed in a speed trap" is a victimless "crime". I didn't say killing someone (child or not), by driving recklessly, was.

Why do you confuse getting caught in a covert speed trap with killing people? You seriously mean to say that if the speed trap wasn't there, somepone would have been killed? Give me a break. The real reason that such well HIDDEN Speed traps are used is, quite simply, to make MONEY. They do not reduce road deaths, they don't even reduce speeds. (If they did, then they would never catch anyone, would they?)

You can never say that it wouldn't happen. That's the very nature of an accident! Speeding is a crime, pure and simple; ergo, speeders are criminals. Nothing will change that.

The whole "money making" thing is an issue to take up with the Government. They have similar things in the States, take it up with them too if you feel so strongly - although they'd be more likely to shoot first and answer your question later

not trying to cause an argument but speeding isn't a criminal offence

There was me thinking this was a thread about alternative gifts 'For Him'.......I can just see it on Amazon.....'Prank all your friends and neighbours - stand at the side of the road in a hi-viz jacket....'

People who bought this item also bought: A Hi-viz jacket.

Special offer: Buy the cam and hi-viz jacket for £??

All motoring offences (except parking offences in areas where enforcement has been handed over to local councils, rather than traffic wardens) come under Criminal Law, so there can be no doubt that speeding is a criminal offence. Motoring offences dealt with by means of fixed penalties don't create (or add to) a criminal record, whereas those dealt with in the courts DO form part of a criminal record.

Should you decide to have your day in Court, the criminal offence of speeding has many possible consequences including:

Acquittal in Court
Conviction in Court (appearance) - fine, points and record
Conviction in Court (in absence) - fine, points and record
Discretionary Police Caution - record
Discretionary FPN - fine, points, no record
Warning
No Action Taken

I doubt 30mph and 35mph will have any difference in resulting pain, you've probably as much chance of being killed at 30mph as 35. I tend to stay on a pavement, so it probably will never affect me.

That arguement carries on forever, ie 30 to 35, 35 to 40, 40 to 45 etc.

In any case, statistics show otherwise, there is a zone up to about 30mph where you are reasonably likely to live, at 40mph upwards you are likely to be killed. 30-40mph is the 50/50 zone so to speak.

Don't forget it is not just death, there is severe maiming, physically or mentally etc. Even at 30mph you are likely to have a life long disablement of some sort. The speeds are likely to be lower where children are involved because there is a greater chance of going under the vehicle, whereas an adult may "just" have their legs destroyed at 30mph.

When I was 7, I was hit at 40mph (when I was running across the road to get to an ice cream van - think this was on an actual advert about the same time!) - the driver had his leg in a cast as well! I wasn't harmed because I was chucked over the car. I had a massive graze on my chest where I slid on the road when I landed and cuts on every joint area. I got up and felt myself, and found my front was wet. I thought it was blood, but I soon found out I'd wet myself!
The advice I can give is pedestrians - stay on the pavement!!!

Some pedestrians deserve to get mowed down the way they wander into the road with no regard for themselves... I wouldn't take the chance when it comes to over a tonne of metal vs my 15 stone frame.
I am not condoning speeding or dangerous driving. But everyone needs to be scareful on the roads... including pedestrians.. and that goes for cyclists too!

Don't start me on cyclists Phil I used to live in Cambridge and they were a nightmare!! We nearly got taken out on the motorbike on a roundabout by some stupid foreign student on a bike who went round it the wrong way. The roundabout had trees, shrubs and flowers on it so you couldn't see what was coming towards you....the last thing you expect to see is someone on a bike!

We had to pull up to upright sharpish, the bikers amongst you will know how much of a mistake that can be when you're on a roundabout, even at only 15-20mph. The student then had the balls to kick off at US for making her fall onto the grass part of the roundabout! The car drivers behind us weren't best pleased either. The carnage that could have been caused, even at low speeds, doesn't bear thinking about.

They're no different up here either. The number of cyclists that don't cycle on the cycle path on the prom amazes me, as does the abuse you get if you tell them to get on the cycle bit. The ones that cycle on the pavement get on my nerves too! Some pedestrians are just as annoying when they walk on the cycle bit.

Rant over - for now

Contrary to popular belief, the police lose money on thier speed enforcement programmes, to the tune of milions per year, despite fines. So they (and the government) hardly do it to make money.

I was done for speeding in March, first ever offence in 6 years of driving, I was peeved off as I don't usually speed anywhere (and even more annoying is I know people who speed everywhere and never get caught), but at the end of the day, I was breaking the speed limit and I got caught, so you hold your hands up and get on with it.

I also got my car siezed on Friday because the MIB were showing no insurance held, and the [censored] I am, I didnt have the insurance certificate on me to prove otherwise. At first the constable was going to give me a producer, until her jobsworth mate came along and said it should be siezed. Just cost me £250 to get the car back, and the issue lay with my insurance company (Quinn Direct), though amazingly, my car was back on the database two days later!! What a pisstake, but lifes a bitch and shit happens!! I only nipped to PC World to get a laser printer, 2 minutes walk from my apartment and I gets pulled over on a drink-drive campaign, shows zero on the meter etc, and the plod wouldnt even let me nip home and get my insurance ceritifcate.

Lol. I agree with the enforcement of speeding etc, and at the end of the day, the plod can only go on what information they are provided with by the MIB. When that information is incorrect for whatever reason though, it can be costly, which is where I think it does become unfair - as is "procedure" whereby it was procedure not to allow me to walk down the road to get my insurance certificate. I only took it out pf the car a few weeks back to query my windscreen cover - costly mistake, and lesson learnt lol!

Glad you sorted it matey but I'd be ringing Quinn direct to see if you could get any costs back (it is their fault after all).

I had the same problem in the SAME location, PC World. Was it a grey BMW estate?
It's easy to get done for speeding if you're not concentrating on the +/- % of speed, I don't speed, but find it hard to stick at 30mph. It's just a done thing, like everything else in life.

It would help if the car manufacturers designed gearboxes with ratios that made sense to use at 30mph, on most cars, this is very much an in-between-gears speed.

Never had a car that felt as though I didnt have the right gear for 30mph

Back to the main topic subject, I must admit its a bit of a "make the numbers up location", although there are a lot of industrial units there, with traffic pulling in / out, but I can think of better locations, in more built up areas, where they would be of more use.

The most pointless location I can think of is by the Toyota garage coming to the end of the M53! True, its a 40 limit, and people come round that corner still doing 50+ but.....

All accidents there seem to happen on the corner before the Toyota garage, so they are failing to slow people down in readyness for the corner and thus, they are not preventing an accident there.

Once passed Toyota there is a roundabout at the end of the motorway where you have to slow and give way anyway, its not like you come off the motorway and run directly in to a town center...

So, I came to the conclusion that they are only protecting the slip road outside the Toyota garage (anyone remember an accident there ) or they are making the numbers up from people coming round the conrer to quick!

They would be better off in a different location IMO, its using places like this, that make little sense, that makes the type of enforcement look like a nice little earner....

It was only because dickheads superspeeding were crashing on that bend stuy which was why they put it down to 40. It was a perfectly safe bend to take at 70... in good weather conditions

I know that Phil, you know that, but its no good the police standing after the bend and catching a car speeding as it comes sideways round the corner, crashing though the Toyota fence - if they want to prevent that, they need to set up before the bend.

And as for where they normally wait, thats where everyone is braking for the roundabout and there is very little danger of an accident...

You are of course correct. There's no point in them being there at all. Although I have heard that Toyota do a mean coffee and donut whilst your car is being serviced. So maybe that explains the police presence?... not to be confused with what you get them for christmas - police presents...

If speed enforcement was all about slowing people down in pedestrian areas why are there no speed cameras outside schools?
Why a mobile cameras used on the Wallasey Dock Road where there is little to no pedestrian activity?

Speed enforcement has nothing to do with road/pedestrian safety. Its all about the numbers. The more people they nab for breaking the speed limit the more their figures look good before the next budget meeting.

Its as simple as that.

You do see them in built up areas, which have more traffic, and pedestrians (Bayswater Rd - New Brighton), its just these 2 locations which seem a little suspect

Theres more than just 2 that are a little suspect. The siting of the majority of speed cameras is suspect.
Woodchurch road?
A41 Cammell Lairds? Ive even had a fine overturned for this one.
A41 Eastham?

Yet how many speed cameras are sited outside schools?

I would be happy to see speed cameras outside every school and a 20mph speed limit. If it was about road safety this would have been brought in already.

But sadly it isnt about road safety, hence the poor placement of permanent cameras and the choice of site for mobile cameras.

Yep. I think there should be more 20mph speed limits around schools and narrow residential roads. However roads like Fender Lane (A553?) and the M53 to Bayswater Road road (A554?) should be at least 60mph. If there was a camera just past the entrance to the gunsite before the houses then it would make people slow down earlier - Similar to the way the one is as you enter Moreton off Fender Lane. It's not exactly rocket science and yet it takes a whole bunch of clipboards and high vis jackets several years to make the wrong decision.

That Toyota fence was being repaired again yesterday!!!
Must be people who don't know the area that crash into that fence???

What about the road towards Aldi in Liscard? I loved seeing the amount of tyre marks gouging the grass up down there every week!

Where is Aldi in Liscard?

I got tugged a few months ago for no insurance as a result of Quinn not applying my vehicle to the database. I had a lengthy discussion with the officer about wether he could or couldn't sieze my car for it because Quinn are based in Ireland they aren't as contactable as most other insurers. I think you'll find that you should be refunded the fee by the police not by Quinn. The fact is you were pulled for "allegedly" having no insurance, if neither you nor the police could prove for or against at the roadside the police should not have taken your vehicle, the fact is I presume that at a later date you have totally and unequivically proved you were in fact insured at the time so the police have siezed your vehicle without due cause as they didn't exhaust all available avenues to prove you had committed the alleged offence before siezing your vehicle and thus had no reason to sieze your vehicle so the recovery and pound costs should be met by them! I damn near got arrested for pointing all this out to the officer that stopped me but I wouldn't back down and eventually was let on my way with a warning to not be so cheeky, I wasn't being cheeky I was merely defending myself from action being taken against me for being wrongly accused of a offence that had never taken place!

Listening to you lot it sounds like the only way you will stick to the speed limit is if the cameras were placed every 100 yards or so. The placing of the cameras is irrelevant.............. a 30mph limit is a 30mph limit regardless of how many cameras there are.
It sounds like you're saying that you will only stick to the speed limit if there is a camera there to sting you?????

I got caught last year and opted for the course. The best piece of info they gave me was if the limit is 30mph then stay in 3rd. If it starts to get noisy then the chances are you're going over 30. Cheesy as it sounds that course really did change my driving habits after 30+ years

And what you would have paid out in a fine is going to be equal to what you will spend on the extra fuel driving around in 3rd all the time.

The problem with that idea is, it tends to use more fuel in a lot of cars than selecting 4th gear, and also all cars are different, it depends on engine/power/torque/fuel and most importantly gear ratio's. In a Wankel for instance, you will actually cause serious damage to the engine by driving at less than 4000rpm reguarly or for prolonged periods of time. Which is why half of the engines seem to conk out at under 40k, because people drive them at low revs and it causes a build-up of carbon on the rotors and this causes damage, that eventually leads to either an £3000+ engine replacement or at best a £2000+ rebuild.

The easiest way to do it, is to do as you should, and keep an eye on your speed, ive not been driving for 30 years yet, not even 10 years lol, but I know what doing 30 feels like in each of my cars and how the engine responds to 30 (and also what gear is best/most efficient for doing 30 in) both soundwise and vibration wise. If you drive at 30 when you should be, just like if you indicate when you be doing so, it basically becomes second nature, you get so used to doing it, you dont even realise you are doing it.

In most cars not at 30mph but you're right you're revs will race if you go over. Try it, you may be surprised
Sometimes it's not only about money........... if doing that makes you keep your speed down and so prevents you from killing or maiming someone then, in some people's minds, it is worth it

I've said it before and I'll say it again, ~90% of drivers drive at the speed that they feel is right for the road they are on. 30mph is just an arbtrary, artificial number - it cannot possibly be the ideal speed limit for everywhere that it is currently used. There must be thousands of places that the limit is 30, where in fact, speeds of 35, 40, 45 or even 50 would be perfectly safe in normal conditions. But you dare do over the magic number '30' and you are a CRIMINAL! Well pardon me if I think that is ridiculous.

Driving in 3rd is a stupid suggestion. whoever said that should be shot. Why not drive in top gear making accelerating over 30 more difficult? Like Matt said people should know what 30 feels like. Sometimes depending on road/weather/traffic conditions 30 is too fast. Part of it should be common sense and not just sticking to whatever speed the sign says. I'm not having a go with everything else you said softy. just the person who suggested 3rd gear.
I went with our Students to a 'drive to survive' course in Cheshire a few years ago and that was gruesome but excellent. Definately made you think.

30mph in 4th gear 1700rpm
30mph in 3rd gear 2100rpm

Which ever way you look at it the engine is turning more in 3rd gear at 30mph so it will cost more.

I understand what you are saying about slowing down. I am all for road safety, which is why I think there should be speed cameras outside every school to start off with. But there is such a thing as inappropriate speed, and that is what is the killer.

40mph in the Bidston Bypass is an insane speed limit for a road that was previously 70mph, and absolutely nothing has changed on that stretch of road.
There are areas of the Wirral where the speed limit is set unreasonably low, and there are areas of the Wirral where the speed limit is set dangerously high. Yet the powers that be dont exercise common sense and do anything about it.

You find me 1 person that would object to 20mph and a speed camera in front of every school in the borough. Yet they wont do that. What they will do is nearly halve the speed limit on a piece of road that has been perfectly safe up to that point with a 70 limit.

I dont think anyone would condone inappropriate speed, because it is simply dangerous, a lot more dangerous than 35mph in a 30mph road, when that road is the Wallasey Dock Road with little to no pedestrian activity.

Reduce speed limit.
Install speed camera.
Receive currency.

I think catching people out on that road by Tescos, straight after changing the speed limit was a little bit evil.

Think I meant the Lidl in Leasowe.

Well said sir.

Contrary to some opinions, at 30 it is probably safer for a reasonable driver to drive in 3rd gear, it gives much more flexibility in the options you can do when something goes wrong.

In 3rd the engine breaking is greater, plus you can accelerate out of a situation easier where necessary .... not everybody closes there eyes, lets go of the steering wheel and slams on the brakes when something goes wrong.

Also fuel consumption will not be greatly different between 3rd and 4th, while the revs are higher in 3rd, the loading on the engine is less. Also the efficiency of the engine at different revs and load have to be taken into account. I notice that Vauxhalls make the mistake in assuming a direct relationship between fuel consumption and revs, according to them if the engine is going twice the revs it will consume twice the fuel - wrong!