Stradageek wrote:The simple solution, much practiced in Nordic countries would be "Ok, we'll let you do the series and then the ban will come into effect"
In other words, nice try sunshine but we've still got you!
This. Sensible. Expedient. Likely impossible without a change to the law, I expect.
I thought a speed limit was a limit not to be exceeded, not that e.g. in a 30 limit you can do 40 as long as your average is 30 or lower. Is he talking about average speed cameras? - which to me is just another type of speed camera; so a 70 mph speed limit road with average speed cameras still means legally you must never go above 70 mph.
Or have I missed some new type of speed limit?
Ian
That's the theory but in practice they mean drivers mustn't average more than 78 mph
So no such thing as an "average speed limit" but just a type of speed camera - which shows that Coogan's comments to the court show that he does not even understand the concept of a "speed limit". He said "I try to observe the average speed limits that have come in".
Ian
Oh I think he's a bit of an expert these days, or at least his lawyer is!
Mike Sales wrote:I often see on-screen pieces in which the actor or presenter is ostensibly driving on open public roads. These do look very convincing. I really doubt that they are faked.
They're often done with the car being towed on a low trailer for the dialogue bits, intercut with shots of the car actually being driven where you can't see them actually talking. Very easy to do, cheap and perfectly safe.
Are you sure? Do you have special knowledge of this? When I wrote to the BBC about one which was shot on a crowded street they did not use this justification. Shots of drivers chatting to camera are commonplace. Why would they go to the length of using a trailer when a different setup would work equally well? I am usually convinced. I shall have to watch more closely in future.
Don't know that it's always done that way, but I know the technique is common. Depending on the scale of the production, there's probably a director, cameraman and sound man with a load of gear who need a vehicle, which is probably going to be a 4x4. Adding a trailer behind is a trivial extra. The give away tends to be if a car comes up behind, it looks lower than it should. I saw a shot of it being done once, the presenters were perfectly safe, but the cameraman was in the back of a Range Rover with the tailgate up, presumably breaking seat belt laws.
I thought a speed limit was a limit not to be exceeded, not that e.g. in a 30 limit you can do 40 as long as your average is 30 or lower. Is he talking about average speed cameras? - which to me is just another type of speed camera; so a 70 mph speed limit road with average speed cameras still means legally you must never go above 70 mph.
Or have I missed some new type of speed limit?
Ian
That's the theory but in practice they mean drivers mustn't average more than 78 mph
I loaded a Tom Tom app the other day which, among other things has real-time speed limit info on it and was amazed to see that it also gives you a real-time average speed through average speed monitored areas. Remarkable.
But presumably if you drive at 120 mph through most of a monitored part of a 70 mph road but slow down to 10 mph for the last bit to get your average speed limit down you have still broken the law, just avoided being caught by the average speed detector cameras.
We have a common understanding of average, yes. But as we both know these zones are filled with people respecting the average speed as an absolute.
As can be readily seen in the M6 smart motorway works there's still the opportunity to catch people speeding via camera vans, one of which is almost invariably stationed somewhere along the length.
Mike Sales wrote:I often see on-screen pieces in which the actor or presenter is ostensibly driving on open public roads. These do look very convincing. I really doubt that they are faked.
They're often done with the car being towed on a low trailer for the dialogue bits, intercut with shots of the car actually being driven where you can't see them actually talking. Very easy to do, cheap and perfectly safe.
If these methods delivered an acceptable illusion of driving, then Coogan's argument, that a longer ban would mean that his travelogue would have to be cancelled, fails. The whole show could be faked, and if this is routine, then no problem arises. Perhaps his evidence was lies, and that should attract punishment.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
pete75 wrote: That's the theory but in practice they mean drivers mustn't average more than 78 mph
I loaded a Tom Tom app the other day which, among other things has real-time speed limit info on it and was amazed to see that it also gives you a real-time average speed through average speed monitored areas. Remarkable.
But presumably if you drive at 120 mph through most of a monitored part of a 70 mph road but slow down to 10 mph for the last bit to get your average speed limit down you have still broken the law, just avoided being caught by the average speed detector cameras.
Ian
You're not wrong but you'd be highly unlikely to be caught because there won't be any other speed enforcement in an area covered by average speed cameras. Perhaps there should be from time to time though.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
I thought a speed limit was a limit not to be exceeded, not that e.g. in a 30 limit you can do 40 as long as your average is 30 or lower. Is he talking about average speed cameras? - which to me is just another type of speed camera; so a 70 mph speed limit road with average speed cameras still means legally you must never go above 70 mph.
Or have I missed some new type of speed limit?
Ian
That's the theory but in practice they mean drivers mustn't average more than 78 mph
I loaded a Tom Tom app the other day which, among other things has real-time speed limit info on it and was amazed to see that it also gives you a real-time average speed through average speed monitored areas. Remarkable.
I had Tomtom on a mobile phone years ago when you needed a seperate Bluetooth GPS for navigation and it had that feature way back then. Must have been about 2006.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Bonefishblues wrote:I loaded a Tom Tom app the other day which, among other things has real-time speed limit info on it and was amazed to see that it also gives you a real-time average speed through average speed monitored areas. Remarkable.
But presumably if you drive at 120 mph through most of a monitored part of a 70 mph road but slow down to 10 mph for the last bit to get your average speed limit down you have still broken the law, just avoided being caught by the average speed detector cameras.
Ian
You're not wrong but you'd be highly unlikely to be caught because there won't be any other speed enforcement in an area covered by average speed cameras. Perhaps there should be from time to time though.
As I said earlier I regularly see camera vans in the M6 smart motorway roadworks North of Birmingham which are also average speed controlled, at least ostensibly.
Hi, Mmmmm "couldn't remember who was driving the car" You and me would go to jail for less. Total slime ball.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Mike Sales wrote:I often see on-screen pieces in which the actor or presenter is ostensibly driving on open public roads. These do look very convincing. I really doubt that they are faked.
They're often done with the car being towed on a low trailer for the dialogue bits, intercut with shots of the car actually being driven where you can't see them actually talking. Very easy to do, cheap and perfectly safe.
If these methods delivered an acceptable illusion of driving, then Coogan's argument, that a longer ban would mean that his travelogue would have to be cancelled, fails. The whole show could be faked, and if this is routine, then no problem arises. Perhaps his evidence was lies, and that should attract punishment.
Coogan told the court that the camera shots could not be faked: “You have cameras mounted on the bonnet then you have other shots where you have a camera mounted on a separate car filming the person in the car driving.”
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
cotswolds wrote:They're often done with the car being towed on a low trailer for the dialogue bits, intercut with shots of the car actually being driven where you can't see them actually talking. Very easy to do, cheap and perfectly safe.
If these methods delivered an acceptable illusion of driving, then Coogan's argument, that a longer ban would mean that his travelogue would have to be cancelled, fails. The whole show could be faked, and if this is routine, then no problem arises. Perhaps his evidence was lies, and that should attract punishment.
Coogan told the court that the camera shots could not be faked: “You have cameras mounted on the bonnet then you have other shots where you have a camera mounted on a separate car filming the person in the car driving.”
"Coogan explained, when questioned by the Magistrates, that Partridge was filmed in a documentary 'fly on the wall' style which would not be able to be replicated using other methods, especially as the idea of the eponymous character touring by car was central to the new production."
... and I'm not a lawyer. No mileage in perjury here, it's simply fair comment and opinion.
Bonefishblues wrote:"Coogan explained, when questioned by the Magistrates, that Partridge was filmed in a documentary 'fly on the wall' style which would not be able to be replicated using other methods, especially as the idea of the eponymous character touring by car was central to the new production."
... and I'm not a lawyer. No mileage in perjury here, it's simply fair comment and opinion.
My original point was that this sort of filming is surely more distracting and disturbing to concentration than using a hands- free phone. Are the roads cleared of the public?
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
