Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Average-speed cameras: boost for road safety or a total waste of money?

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 March 2008
MOTORISTS could face a massive increase in the use of average-speed cameras in Scotland's towns and cities, The Scotsman can reveal. Ministers are considering putting up more cameras that measure speed over set distances, in a huge expansion of the surveillance network on the nation's roads.
Under the proposals, cameras would be placed at either end of a stretch of road and the average speed recorded. The aim is to get drivers to slow down and so cut the number of casualties. Picture: PA
Under the proposals, cameras would be placed at either end of a stretch of road and the average speed recorded. The aim is to get drivers to slow down and so cut the number of casualties. Picture: PA
The average-speed cameras, which record vehicle number plates and the time at each end of a speed-check area, would prevent motorists from "camera surfing" – braking sharply just before a camera and then accelerating away after passing it.

The average-speed devices have already proved effective at enforcing speed limits at roadworks and have been used to police 20mph residential zones in several English cities.

Now Stewart Stevenson, Scotland's transport minister, has floated the idea of extending their use to tackle speeding.

The idea has been welcomed by road safety campaigners but has infuriated motoring groups.

There are concerns about the cost of installing networks of cameras, and whether drivers could evade them. And a study last summer showed the average speed of vehicles going through Edinburgh was just 18.5mph; in Glasgow it was 19mph.

But Mr Stevenson believes average-speed cameras could help cut pedestrian casualties, after road deaths increased by 10 per cent in 2006: there are, as yet, no figures for last year.

The minister also pointed to Swedish research, presented to him last week, showing that most pedestrians hit by vehicles at 60km/h (37mph) are killed.

He has been impressed by a significant reduction in speeding and accidents on a 29-mile stretch of the A77 in Ayrshire since average-speed cameras were introduced in 2005, in what is Britain's longest speed trap.

Since then, the cameras have also been used at major roadworks, such as on the Edinburgh city by-pass, the A90 east of Perth and the M8 in Glasgow.

Road safety chiefs have called for them to be installed permanently on the A1 between Edinburgh and the Border, while the Forth Estuary Transport Authority is considering them for the Forth Road Bridge.

Mr Stevenson said: "The public has an overwhelming wish to cut undesirable speed, so that should be a focus.

"This could be increasingly through the use of average-speed cameras, which have been pretty successful on the A77 and at roadworks sites. I think they could have a role quite widely. They certainly seem to be one of the more effective interventions."

Brake, the road safety charity, backed the use of more average-speed cameras to catch offenders and promote safer driving. A spokeswoman said: "

While current speed cameras have proven effective in reducing the number of people killed and injured on roads, some drivers still persist in putting others in danger by slamming on the brakes when they see a camera, then speeding up once they've gone past.

"Speeding is a dangerous offence, which puts other road users at risk, and these cameras should help to encourage drivers to maintain a consistent, safe speed within the limit."

Scotland's police chiefs were also generally supportive. John Vine, Chief Constable of Tayside and chairman of road policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, said: "We would welcome anything that reduces deaths and serious injuries in urban environments."

Willie Wills, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: "I am pleased to hear that the minister is considering every avenue to address road safety issues, including average-speed cameras in built-up areas.

"The installation of these devices is not without technical challenges, but it is well established that they are successful in reducing speeds and also accidents and casualties. Approximately two-thirds of all crashes in which people are killed or injured happen on roads with a speed limit of 30mph or less.

"Reducing the average running speed of vehicles by just 1mph would reduce the number of accidents by 5 per cent.

"It is to be hoped that public support for the installation of these devices at sites that are recognised to need compliance with the speed limits will see them deterring excessive speed rather than detecting large numbers of offenders."

However, motoring groups saw no merit in the move.

Neil Greig, a director of the Institute of Advanced Motorists' Motoring Trust, said: "I would rather see good road design to reduce speeding in urban areas, such as blocking off the ends of streets and traffic calming measures, rather than have to use speed cameras. Drivers would find the widespread use of cameras intrusive."

Bruce Young, of the Association of British Drivers, said: "Average-speed cameras are useful in regulating stretches of road where it is important to, for instance, protect road repair workers. This usefulness is restricted, however, to that part of the day when the workers are working – yet we see no evidence of these cameras being deactivated at other times. The conclusion has to be that their main attraction is to fine drivers on the technicality of the rigid enforcement of the limit."

Mark McArthur-Christie, the director of policy for Forward, a transport think tank, said: "Normal speed cameras divert drivers' attention from the road ahead to their speedometers. Urban average-speed cameras are much more dangerous. They will turn drivers into speedo- focused cruise missiles, watching the clock permanently rather than watching the road – just where there are most hazards."

In England, average-speed cameras have improved safety on roads in Nottingham, and been introduced to deter rat-runners in Gloucester.

In the latest trial, in Camden, north London, speeding in a 20mph zone has been cut – although no fines have been issued as the scheme involves new cameras, which are still awaiting Home Office approval.

Kristy Marshall, from Transport for London, which is taking part in the trial, said: "We are following the development of this technology closely as we believe these new cameras could, in time, replace speed humps."

AVERAGE-SPEED CAMERAS CUT ACCIDENTS BY HALF ON A77

SCOTLAND'S first average-speed cameras were installed on the A77 in Ayrshire in August 2005.

The £775,000 speed enforcement camera system (Specs) uses 15 linked cameras to track vehicles over stretches of a 29-mile section of the route between Symington and Girvan.

The cameras time a car's journey between two points, recording vehicles that are found to have broken the speed limit.

Although initially resisted by motoring groups, the cameras have proved invaluable in cutting accidents on the Glasgow-Stranraer route.

Figures released by the A77 Safety Group last year show that deaths and serious injuries on the road have fallen by half since the average-speed cameras were installed.

The annual number of deaths on the route fell from four to two after the cameras were introduced, with serious injuries dropping from 17 to nine per year. There was also a one-third reduction in the total number of people injured.

Separate speed-monitoring equipment showed the number of drivers breaking the speed limit on dual-carriageway sections of the A77 covered by Specs has fallen by 87 per cent. Speeding on single carriageways was cut by 78 per cent.

The A77 is the longest section of road in Britain to be covered by Specs.

Following the success of the A77 project, average-speed cameras have been used temporarily on a number of sites across Scotland's road network and can be currently found on the Edinburgh city bypass enforcing a 40mph speed limit next to where the Dalkeith bypass is being built.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

tomi,

24/03/2008 00:08:18
Yet more evidence that Britain is now a police state.
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:35:16
Definitely needed, because of some the 'nutters' that drive on our roads!

Take this example,

Lanark Road Edinburgh!

When you approach this road going west, it becomes a 40MPH restriction (only of-course if safe to do so)
Just before you come to the Gillespie cross roads a new children's Nursery has been built and you coming to traffic-lights anyhow!

Time and Time again and everyday, Drivers Pass me and must be doing 60MPH!, have they a 'death-wish'?

They have NO consideration for anyone, not even a child that maybe crossing the road, or a mother with a pram, or the elderly!

Speed Cameras,? yes More Needed and I would pay for them if I could!
To prevent a 'needless' Death!
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:40:45
I have my Advanced Driving certificate, and the Police RoSpa level 2 driving certificate, so don't anyone start on the dangers of speed, not believing it!
4

Matt there,

somewhere 24/03/2008 00:47:20
There's more to road safety than mere speed!

If some idiot driver goes through a red light at a pedestrian crossing and hits a car or runs down a pedestrian, if some fool drives over a Zebra crossing and smashes into a mother and pram or some damn cyclist bowls down a pavement and knocks down and kills an OAP I do not care if they were doing an average of 29.9mph or 31mph!

IT DOESN'T MATTER! It is NOT only the speed that causes the problem- it is what a driver does that causes the problem.

And anyway, whatever happened to the Green Cross Code? Or has that been replaced with a speed camera?
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:50:37
The Pianist @#5/6/7,

Well unless you know different,

Dont matter what speed you play the 'piano' :-)
6

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:57:56
Matt there @#8,
"And anyway, whatever happened to the Green Cross Code?"

And do you think that would make any difference, when a car being driven at 70MPH wanted to beat the lights!

Or someone crossing the road,
Stopped Looked and Listened, not expecting or having the time, to be safe, with a vehicle traveling at 70MPH coming towards them!
7

Boswall,

24/03/2008 01:11:55
Charles Linskaill

In the space of a couple of posts your average driver has gone from doing 60 at Gillespie road to 70 on the approach to unspecified traffic lights.

I fully expect by the time we hit 50 posts drivers will be pasing you at mach 2.

Do you also have an Advanced Exaggeration certificate?
8

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 01:12:18
The Pianist @#11,

That IS Very True!
9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 01:15:06
Boswall @#12,
Don't get smart and read correctly!

70MPH is NOT the reference to Gillespie Road!
10

Fifi la Bonbon,

24/03/2008 01:16:45
These cameras will mean that lawbreakers are more likely to be caught, while keeping human police free to do proper policing.

There is a foolproof way to avoid detection - maintain a driving speed within the speed limit at all times.

People who find monitoring their speed on the speedometer at the same time as driving safely are obviously not capable of maintaining full control of their vehicles, and should walk and use public transport.
11

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 01:50:24
Authorities spending money like water on already obsolete technology in their haste to get on the revenue band wagon.

Once again the UK leads the pack at being at the back of the queue.
12

Sanny,

Portugal 24/03/2008 01:54:50
The problem with speed cameras is that they are seen as another way of taxing the motorist as such they provide a source of grievance for the motoring public. If the true purpose is to reduce or control speed then I believe there is a better and less irritating way to achieve this.

Here in the Algarve they make use of speed controlled lights. If a motorist is exceeding the speed limit in a controlled area, the traffic lights switch to red and traffic is stopped, on that side of the road only, for about 20 seconds. The motorists quickly learn that the fastest way to get from A to B is to travel at the speed limit.

In a country where they tend to have only two speeds - stopped or flat out - this system seems to be extremely effective. Further is does not cause friction between the public and the Traffic Police. Of course for Motorways we have a different problem and I believe Cameras are to be introduced.

The only variation to the traffic light system I would suggest is that a camera is fitted to catch those who run through the lights at red. Such offenders should have both their licence and car removed for a month on first offence and the period doubled up on each offence.

The Authorities need to decide if they are solely interested in improving safety or if this is truly a money grubbing exercise.
13

Fifi la Bonbon,

24/03/2008 01:55:25
"You are a pretty weak link. You know the rest . ."

What does that even mean? You seem to be trying to disagree, without making the effort to string together the facts and arguments. Are you trying to channel the spirit of the acerbic presenter of a popular TV quiz in the hope that you will come across as having a personality? What are you going to say next? "Get a life?"
14

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:19:02
There's already a fool proof way of not being convicted.

Drive around on false plates, simply find a car like yours and use your mobile phone camera to make a note of the number, after all, you're not going to be caught, because the authorities aren't going to believe the driver of the car you've cloned is telling the truth that he was in bed at the time.

I'm irresponsible to even suggest this? ...not really, it wasn't my idea, it's a growing trend.

It took four years to catch one motorcyclist who was caught on camera 66 times because he was registered with a false name and address and sky news has already run an article that illegal drivers across the country are at epedemic proportions.

The evidence is all there, but in their haste to get on the revenue band wagon, authority has chosen to ignore the blatant holes in the policy.

Only a question of time till it all goes wrong.
15

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:23:31
Why have I said it? ...am I a terrible driver who wants to speed everywhere and thinks cameras are dreadfully unfair? ..no, of course not, I think the whole idea is pathetic.

Because it's reported that 50% of speeding convictions across the UK are never paid and I don't for a moment believe that 50% can all be speeding police cars.

Speed cameras, openning the door to break the law.
16

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:32:33
I should point out that the motorcyclist was caught 66 time on the 'same camera'.

You'd have thought considering how frequently he was doing it over a four year period, it would have been worth corralating the information from all those photo's to identify a pattern and most likely time he would do it again and then put a police car there to catch him.

But apparently the force in question congratulate themselves because after months of police man hours they tracked him down by a sale of one of the motorcycles, probably costing a six figure sum in the bargain.

Is it just my opinion, or since speed cameras arrived, has authority become a little bit less clear in thought?

Mind you, the judge only gave him a suspended sentence and didn't ban him, proving once and for all, if you're honest and keep your vehicle legal and pay your fine without question ....you're an idiot.
17

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:51:06
While I think about it, I should explain why people using cloned plates get away with it.

The problem is in the mechanism, under current law, if you fail to give the identity of the driver at the time of the offence, they fine you.

If you take the case to court, you obviously won't have any evidence to prove you weren't the driver unless you were really lucky and was having a heart attack in a hospital at the time and your whereabouts is on their records.

So, taking the case to court is likely to cost you thousands of pounds in lawyers fees.

On the other hand, you can get rid of it by paying sixty quid. Which is fine until the next time your clone gets caught, because by then you won't have a leg to stand on because you've admitted your previous offences and are a serial speeder and a menance to society. So then, if you've figured it out, you sell the car, passing the batton to the next poor sucker who's going to end up loosing his license.

Excellent system don't you think? ...here's to more speed cameras, I commend them to the house.
18

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:59:46
Down in Kent this week, one of the partnerships had to over turn 120 convictions by mobile speed camera, following allegations that the operator had been fixing speeds to bump up the catch.

The police issued a statement claiming that there was no tampering involved and it was an operational error in how the camera had been setup.

Which means that incompetence is obviously better than tampering with equipment. This follows 300 unsound convictions in Lancashire recently for the same thing, inspite of a widely seen documentary on the BBC showing just how easy it was to set up these mobile cameras incorrectly.

But we still continue using these cameras.

Excellent way to get the publics trust I'd say.

Not to mention inspite of all the talk and propaganda about speed cameras while even now the latest figures I've seen for road safety show a 13% increase in casualties across the uk.

Wow, impressive, anyone still backing this horse to make our roads safer?

By the way, I'm not making it up, five minutes on google will tell you that. Some is from sky news on the web, some is from the bbc news website.
19

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 03:06:42
Because I've had this conversation before, for the benefit of the hard headed who will not see and think that I'm scare mongering.

Cloning a number plate ..is it difficult? ..is it likely to happen? ..would anyone actually risk it?

I know I wouldn't do it, but then I wouldn't rummage through anyones bin trying to find your bank statment to commit identity fraud.

Bottom line, isn't it about time for authority to stop and take a breath and stop believing their own propaganda and take the time to consider that not all of these millions of people who complain about speed camera policy is a road rage merchant with red mist infront of his eyes, some of us watch bemused at the obvious stupidity that will eventually make authority look like a laughing stock.
20

Navvy,

singapore 24/03/2008 03:25:11
Forth Estuary Transport Authority

should be

Firth of Forth Transport Authority

The double ff would be a good ffit for their ffaffing aboot

Firth is a good Scots word which like strath has been abandoned for the bland
21

Navvy,

24/03/2008 03:26:03
I have never been able to get above 25mph on any significant on the pathetic city (parking lot) bypass
22

Mill,

24/03/2008 03:38:38
Orwell strikes again.
What's amazing is how much police fascism people submit to without so much as a whimper. Like the path to the gas chamber.
23

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA........Hillary for Pres....Barack Hus 24/03/2008 03:49:49
Dudes ,
To help save lives, U need these averaging camera technology installed on all roads.

Drivers kill other people Speed does not people.

GUNS don't kill people, but people with guns, kill people.

Here in the US drivers kill approx 26,000 people each year . These not drunk drivers , just drivers who have no clue about safety in driving.

And even less, about the dynamics of their vehicles driven at 30 mph , 70 mph 90 mph. in many many different road conditions and weather.

So one of the very few ways to stop this carnage is to trap the stupid uneducated drivers .

Fine them and take away their licence (license) UNTIL they complete a driving class/test and pass .

This class would include controlling a vehicle at high speeds in the worst possible driving condition etc etc

STOP Squawking about the cameras. Learn to drive safely and STOP blaming SPEED.

Happy Haggis Day with some Irish Whisky.

GC
24

Statsman,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 04:13:37
Increase cameras and decrease police. It's a Nu Labour agenda that no one likes.If the SNP carry on like this, they have no chance of getting my vote next time.
25

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 24/03/2008 04:16:40
Police in Scotland (and the rest of UK) seem to be only interested in dealing with crimes they can measure. Hence the huge overkill on Drink Driving and speeding.

Meanwhile, crimes such as dangerous and reckless driving are ignored as are many crimes where behaviour is threatening or downright dangerous but requires the police to prove the guilt in a less empirical manner.
26

Statsman,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 04:21:38
This SNP government should resign. They are more interested in control freakery than running the country. Scottish Nazi Party.
27

Kiwi,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 04:32:16
It is not speeding drivers that cause accidents on our road but bad drivers.

Will people get picked up for driving too slowly on the avergae speed cameras?
Surely all these people who loiter the city bypass at 40mph or overtake at 50mph could be bbanned in this case allowing traffic to flow more naturally.

Remeber folks, the quicker you get from A to B, the less time you are on the road and the more you help tackle congestion.

28

,

24/03/2008 05:55:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Ubi,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 06:22:20
If the government persists in persecuting motorists, possibly the most put upon social group in the country, they can vote with their feet. They don't have to use the roads. They don't have to keep the economy propped up. They can stay at home and watch TV. Or use public transport, which the government tells us is a viable alternative.

But if all they do is quietly moan about it and pay up the government will keep squeezing the pips.
30

terry osser,

morden 24/03/2008 07:26:54
taxtaxtax--what would they do if no revenue
31

terry osser,

morden 24/03/2008 07:29:26
mr bean is a fascist as is nulab

hitler banned smoking in private properties and now nulab want to put cigarettes under the counter.

no good voting snp no difference. probably time to leave diunited kingdom
32

terry osser,

morden 24/03/2008 07:29:40
disunited!
33

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 24/03/2008 07:35:36
So how much is it going to cost?

And do you think this would have prevented the type of accident that happened on the A98 Fochabers-Cullen road yesterday? I really doubt it. To make roads safer we need to improve the roads.
34

Dannynairn,

Aberdeen 24/03/2008 07:44:08
Seem to have lost my considered comment and if I remember it correctly I advocate that speeding should literally be a hanging offence in the sense that any blatant speeding offence detected by law enforcement officers (duly sworn police constables) should have the power (if such does not already exist amidst the proliferation on road traffic law that has emerged over the years) to firstly impound the vehicle, begin the process of removing the driver's licence if he has one and wait for the legal process to kick in and decide through the courts if necessary. The majority of police officers would have good judgement to decide initially if such powers were to be exercised. From what I know some countries practise this effectively and let's forget the excuses such as too much traffic on our roads, or they are not up to Grand Prix standards, and so on. Let us make do with what we have and stop pussyfooting. I'm not risking having to do another comment and losing it so I'm posting it now as my tuppence worth but Maybe someone else shares my views. It has been one of the many niggles in present life which requires to be effectively addressed.
35

Dannynairn,

Aberdeen 24/03/2008 07:44:56
Thank you and I look forward to that
36

james 1st,

hamilton 24/03/2008 07:45:44
i dont like the proliferation of cameras sneaking a view for the government into our lives, the world already has too many cameras. put policemen out there with radar and increase the fines in necessary to pay the costs
37

Gdgy,

dndy 24/03/2008 07:47:22
I don't like the surveillance angle but these cameras work....
38

Stewart_in_Oz,

Alexandra Hills 24/03/2008 07:59:51
Don't come to Oz to escape the over-policing of the motorists. We have the same problem here.
They need the money. It helps to pay for the junket trips for the pollies, grants to overseas undeveloped countries where there is no accountability and the pollies pocket the proceeds. It helps to pay for newer and 'better' speed detection systems.
It is 'supposed' to pay for road improvements so that when you have been held up for ages due to poor roads and try and catch up for lost time they can catch you more easily etc. and as for the genius who has all they certificates etc for being a 'whiz' driver, I was probably driving before he saw the light of day.
39

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 24/03/2008 08:41:01
#44 danny

Am I reading you correctly. Are you really advocating that speeders should be hanged? A tad draconian don't you think?
40

mr angry,

ayrshire 24/03/2008 08:45:16
Nice easy targets, increase the tax haul , while the police can have double helpings of doughnuts without having to actually go out and do any work at all.
41

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh. 24/03/2008 08:50:52
Perceived road safety being secondary to revenue generation.
42

Marcus Fenix,

Paisley 24/03/2008 09:01:09
I used to drive the A77 regularly down by Prestwick Airport before the cameras were installed and it really was like an episode of wacky races. Since the cameras have been installed it has become a lot more civilised.

And if you fancy a blast the A719 between Galston and Ayr is still there!
43

quite reader,

west lothian 24/03/2008 09:01:18
Recently we were presented with a speeding letter through the post, when my wife enquired by telephone as to what to do as neither of us remembered the incident or have ever been charged with speeding we were told that the camera picture was from behind as the vehicle left a 30MPH limit. When she said that both of us drive the car and we were not sure who drove on that day as it was some 5-6 weeks prior, the person on the other end of the phone said "that it was unclear who was driving, make up your mind who is taking the blame and complete the form". This is justice or a money making excercise.
44

Kenny A,

24/03/2008 09:02:04
Ok folks, totaly agree that there are some stupid types out there who should never have been allowed behind the wheel. Speed kills usualy driving to fast. Driving to slow also causes accidents, rare to hear about anyone being done for this unless they are either drunk or elderly.

Speed limits are set on roads for a reason and that is simply safety. If people had the use of the brain cells God gifted them with and drove at the marked speed limits there would be a lot less deaths on the road.

Driving to fast lands in a crash. Driving to slow forces people to overtake often when it is not wise to do so, usualy younger drivers fall into this catagory.

Speed cameras should be used both for speeders and those who crawl along the roads like like tortoises who have taken to much go slow juice.
45

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 09:05:47
Mark McArthur-Christie ought to be ashamed, trotting out that old chestnut about speed restrictions diverting drivers' attentions from the road. If you cannot remain under the speed limit while giving full attention to the road, you are not fit to drive and should lose your license.
46

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 09:08:09
I was polled by telephone for my attitide on cameras. The authorities really are finding out public opinion as they go. Incidentally I approved of cameras at accident spots - these are a no-brainer, but I was also asked about fines, %above limit for a flash, and for a conviction.

I was quite impressed and I observe the world going pretty much along with what I said. Average speed cameras at roadworks, congested areas and a FEW notorious stretches are fine by me.

By the way, I am a fast driver; I almost always break the speed limit on every journey. I drive 90-100 on motorways and occasionally more. In town I'll be doing 50 in a 40, but I observe 30 in residential or narrow streets. I have never had a speeding ticket. That is because I watch the road way ahead and concentrate on driving; not phones, conversations, radio or anything else. I am safer than the various numpties I encounter whose intentions I often know before they do, certainly before they signal! Beware volvo drivers and hats.

If you want to police me you'll need my consent. Did you know that 50% of contested convictions are quashed? The law and its enforcement need to have safety and behaviour in mind and be fair; any suggestion that it is about raising cash or trapping motorists and there will be a backlash.



47

M.T.,

24/03/2008 09:08:35
4# Charles Linskaill,Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:40:45

Read your Advanced Driving Winter 2007 magazine about the cause of accidents.

51# Helmut Edinburgh. 24/03/2008 08:50:52

Correct! The government want the money. Pity they don't use it to keep our roads safe
48

Upbeat,

24/03/2008 09:15:13
Average speed cameras, the techno " committee's" solution. Is this a hidden sytem in the sense that after a short time on a road you are unfamiliar with you will do something that is detected ?

It is easier and much much cheaper than this.

Why not do what most nations in Europe appear to consider acceptable already. Advertise the fact that there,say, a hundred mobile hidden cameras on the roads each day. No one need know the actual number deployed each day. These cameras could be set up in parked cars, behind street furniture, in hedges , behind bridge parapets, next to trees. for a short period and then swiftly relocated.

This is the system in Holland, France, Germany Switzerland etc etc .

The result is that drivers know that the chances they will be fined for exceeding speed limits on any type of road is always there. The result is a society that sticks to the limits with only the very foolish or the very rich willing to impoverish themselves by getting fined.

If drivers don't know when or where they might be 'flitzed ' everyone drives accordingly. These mobile cameras are driven around by a range of private contactors, this includes Pensioners and retired police officers , even some disabled people etc. . A thorough and cheap solution which alters any nation's mindset about speed.



49

jdships,

24/03/2008 09:16:41
4 Charles Linskaill,

" have my Advanced Driving certificate, and the Police RoSpa level 2 driving certificate, so don't anyone start on the dangers of speed, not believing it!"

I give you the benifit of the doubt that you are not also holding a membership of the "I know more about driving because I hold certificates " club.
Yes speed is dangerous but much more dangerous are drivers.
Having held a driving licence for 55 years and an HGV 1 for 28 years ( now retired) - all clean - I have witnessed many an accident and have been lucky on a few occasions to miss out on being involved.
The holding of a licenec / certificates does not make for a better driver it's what one does on the road that counts.

Circumstances . experience and attitudes all play a major part in driving.

Not convinced about ASC unless they are on every main road in the country !!
50

expat in the sun,

La Oliva 24/03/2008 09:18:59
More cameras - more fines - when are the most spied on and overtaxed motorists going to band together and do something about this.

NOBODY has ever been killed or even sustained as much as a broken fingernail as a result of speed - bad driving is the cause of accidents - this can be excessive speed given the road conditions - or driving too slowly - not paying attention - or just sheer incompetance.

In the right car, on the right roads, in the right conditions, you are no danger to yourself or any other motorist by driving at 60 - 70, 80 or 100 MPH. however you can loose your licence for doing this.
However you can be a terrible driver - drive everywhere well under the speed limit - and have an "accident" everytime you get behind the wheel - your insurance company won't like you, (or maybe they will if you pay their premiums) but as long as nobody gets hurt - you can keep a clean licence!!!

It should be very easy to link insurance company records to the DVLA - anyone with an above average accident rate should be investigated, and if found to be a bad risk - given points and ultimately banned

If this government were serious about road safety - they should impliment the above and instead of sticking cameras everywhere - make it more difficult to get a licence - at the moment you can pass a test without ever having driven at over 40MPH, never having driven on a motorway, never overtaken anything, and probably never driven in adverse conditions.

Secondly: regular eye tests for all drivers every five years and competence tests for elderly drivers

This lot should reduce the number of dangerous drivers by a significant amount.

Lastly - a few years ago the government commissioned the Road Transport Laboratory to corralate the relationship between the drivers with highest speed convictions (SP50's) and their involvment in road accidents - the report came out, and apart from a couple of mentions in the motoring press, and I think the Scotsman gave it a
51

Upbeat,

24/03/2008 09:19:53
56 Voltaire

A more persuasive reason for the use of hidden cameras than the " I'm a better than average driver " rant you have penned her is hard to imagine.

Your post should be 'taken down' to be used in Police training colleges to show trainees evidence of the type of irresponsible self righteous attitude that is to be found on the roads in the UK.
52

DaveK,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:24:12
Scrapping tolls was just a vote winning gimmick - here come the average speed cameras and a much larger pot of cash for the SNP. I wouldn't mind if Salmond spent the money on weight watchers membership and for sturgeon to get her eyebrows plucked! I have always been worried about any political party with the word National in it - let their be no doubt it is the Scottish Nazi party, only the Nazi's had better dress sense.
53

Morbo,

24/03/2008 09:31:45
To keep down pedestrian deaths it might be a good idea if they looked where they were going. I have noticed a trend over the last 5 years where pedestrians will cross roads without looking, sometimes whilst wearing ipods.

Speed is rarely a factor around town - there are so many traffic lights that there are only so many roads where it is possible to get out of second gear before the next light.

Speed limits have remained the same for years and in this time stopping distances have been dramatically cut due to better brakes, ABS and tyres. Tread depth is more of a factor than speed.

Teaching kids the Green Cross Code seems a lot less expensive than setting up a load of cameras. Of course, the real reason for setting up a network of cameras is so that road pricing can be introduced by the back door. They are not going to make the mistake of asking people if they want that again.
54

11+failed,

the pans 24/03/2008 09:32:38
I wish I was a bit smarter then I should be able to understand. Increase the number of speed cameras and average speed zones in 2005. In 2006 road fatalities increase by 10% that is 31 more deaths and blighted families in Scotland compared to 2005.
Answer? more speed cameras and average speed zones. If that is logic no wonder I struggled with my 11+!
55

expat in the sun,

La Oliva 24/03/2008 09:35:31
A few years ago the government commissioned the Road Transport Laboratory to corralate the relationship between the drivers with highest speed convictions (SP50's) and their involvment in road accidents - the report came out, and apart from a couple of mentions in the motoring press, and I think the Scotsman gave it a mention - the rest ignored it and it was immediately buried - WHY? - quite simply - the results showed that drivers convicted of driving fastest - (with the exception of offences in stolen vehicles or involved in police chaces) were actually 5 TIMES LESS likely to be involved in an accident than someone with a clean lecence.

Personally - over a period of 25 years I averaged 40 - 50K a year - over a million miles, in that time I did not have a single accident, but I did accumulate several speeding fines - I was a business motorist - I know that if I had driven all those miles at the speed limit - I would not have been able to carry out my work properly, (adding stress and frustration) - journeys would have taken considerably longer (leading to fatigue) - and I am certain I would have been a danger to myself and other road users as a result -
Speed cameras, have a place in built up areas or at danger spots - but blanket use on motorways, dual carriageways - or 24 hour operation in roadworks which are only manned for a maximum of 8 hours and often not a t all at weekends - can only serve one function and it isn't road safety - it is money gathering
56

Keith Lagden,

24/03/2008 09:36:22
Tis a pity nothing can be done about fast taking smooth slick Politicians who suffer from verbal pollution. They are probably too fast for the camera.
57

lac,

Down Under 24/03/2008 09:41:19
Have just returned from visit to NZ where road systems are comparable (similarly inadequate and poorly maintained) to Scotland. Their police forces make good use of hand-held speed detection equipment, static cameras and high profile patrols. If all else fails they have the power to impose immediate bans for excessive or multiple offences. This allows police to remove keys from offenders at the roadside - a weapon that has made a lasting impression on speeding motorists.
58

Marcus Fenix,

Paisley 24/03/2008 09:41:59
Do what I'm doing - saving up to buy a helicopter. I've had enough of this driving mince.
59

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:44:32
Nazis. Fascists. Gas chambers. Nanny State. Jeez, what is wrong with you people? All you're being asked to do is keep within the speed limit as laid down by the law. Don't speed, don't get fined, simple as that. You're like the Yanks and their obsession with guns. The same macho crap. Fast cars, small d**ks, I suspect.
60

Pa broon,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:45:07
Here we go again another revenue wheeze from the powers above. They won't be satisfied until there are camera's every mile.
61

Sas,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:50:17
# 56 Thank goodness there are excellent drivers like you, good enough to do 90 - 100mph on motorways and 50mph in town. I'm afraid I'm such an inadequate driver that I try and obey the speed limit.

You're proud to break the speed limit all the time and rightly so - if only everyone was like you, our streets would be so much safer....................

Oh, and you certainly shouldn't be policed unless you consent to it - what other laws do you believe you should be immune from?
62

Sas,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:52:03
EVEN IF speed cameras are being used as a system of taxation, it suits me fine - I'm more than happy to have speeding drivers pay more taxes than the rest of us.
63

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 24/03/2008 09:54:33
I travel on a road that is monitored by average speed cameras and can state positively that they are effective in making car drivers observe the speed limit. They have certainly curtailed the activities of the ton-up brigade and the boy racers.
However, they do not prevent HGV's from bunching up, nor do they stop HGV drivers, normally foreign, from ignoring their legal hours, nor prevent them from creating mayhem as they change lanes without being able to see the vehicles on their blind side. In spite of the average speed cameras the A14 in Cambridgeshire continues to be at a stand-still on a daily basis, mainly because of the very high level of commercial traffic that is unaffected by average speed cameras.
64

,

24/03/2008 09:59:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

Kenny A,

24/03/2008 10:00:17
60

Heard this type of argument before and I am afraid you are both right and wrong. Bad driving kills, speed also kills, have seen a few accidents where death was due to speed, no broken fingernails, just broken bodies and broken families.

There seems to be a perception amongst a great deal of people that when they get behind a wheel it is everyone else who is a bad driver, not themselves.

Speed does kill because you do not have the time to react as you would at lower speeds. As I mentioned earlier however, driving to slow also causes other people to overtake when they should not. It is usualy the impact that kills. Faster you go harder the impact.

Obey the speed signs if it says 20mph drive at that if it says 70 drive at that speed when safe to do so. And yes before anyone tackles me on this I like to drive fast, years in Germany does that to a man. Years in Africa where everyone thinks he is Micheal Schumaker drings out the urge to hire a driver.

Speed does indeed kill.
66

Marcus Fenix,

Paisley 24/03/2008 10:02:28
Just wait till the government make it compulsary to have a GPS chip in your car! You'll be taxed by the mile and be able to tell is you're speeding at the same time. Flying is the way forward.
67

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh. 24/03/2008 10:06:09
Presumably a sizeable chunk of this undoubted increased revenue from these new cameras will be used to repair the numerous potholes which are contributing to road accidents and vehicle damage?
68

drew 33,

24/03/2008 10:08:02
64 11+failed,
"Increase the number of speed cameras and average speed zones in 2005. In 2006 road fatalities increase by 10% that is 31 more deaths and blighted families in Scotland compared to 2005.
Answer? more speed cameras and average speed zones. If that is logic no wonder I struggled with my 11+!"
I think I can help you out there! Just a bit of lateral thinking, the revenue from cameras fell between 2005 and 2006. Answer, increase the number of cameras.
69

Marcus Fenix,

Paisley 24/03/2008 10:08:10
Behave Helmut.
70

Nemo,

On the road again 24/03/2008 10:09:35
An overall low standard of driver skill is still the major threat on our roads

Revenue generation from motorists still transcends other road safety measures

There is still nothing of statistical significance to suggest these cameras make roads safer.
71

drew 33,

24/03/2008 10:13:04
Great system these average speed cameras. They each monitors one lane just enter the zone on the inner lane and leave by the outer, or vice versa.
72

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 10:13:37
#74

I happen to agree with you that the speed limit on motorways should be raised to 80. And I won't deny I've had a ticket in the past; I took the chance and suffered the consequences. I don't feel threatened by the State, however, just because it tells me how fast to drive. I, too, have concerns about the controlling instincts of the SNP and Labour. Not being allowed to be a boyracing a*se on the roads is the least of all our worries. Your linking speeding fines and totalitarianism is pathetic. You insult all the people in the world who have to really worry about a knock at the door not just getting points on their licence.
73

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 10:23:45
You guys. You're so easy to wind up.

So Upbeat. I've never had a speeding conviction. How about the average driver? How 'bout you?

Mathematically, in this one category that means I am entitled to claim above average.

SAS - no exemptions. This country used to require consent in policing. You against that? If I get caught I'll pay my fine, and if caught twice I'll seek to modify my behaviour until the consensual three years rolls by. I consent to that.

The problem with rantislation such as espoused by morally better-than-thou drivers herein is that it is simple human nature to cast stones while hoping your ain glass hoose remains out of censorous gaze.

Ever watched porn, eh? Your hard drive never witnessed a dodgy mpeg? Aye right. What if someone with up-tight morality decided your nads had to go for watching the still-illegal practices commonly regarded as normal by most folk?

The answer is policing by consent. Our polis uphold the law unlike, say, the US where they enforce. Continuous adjustment is key in this respect. Cars and speeds, seatbelts, crumple zones, speed cameras, traffic lights etc are all subject to this societal imperative.

I'll keep my max no claims, clean license thanks and deceive myself of my above average status until proved otherwise thanks.
74

scottish person,

24/03/2008 10:26:49
#73 You are dead right. The police seem to ignore HGV's.They just charge along at 60 everywhere and no one seems to bother. Urban motorways with a speed limit of 50, ONLY APPLICABLE TO CARS, as lorries charge on at 60 everywhere. They are destroying our roads in town(where they should be banned), in country roads they are destroying the road surface. They are also getting bigger. The roads in the UK were not built for these monsters. The drivers have also had their brains removed, which does not help. When is something going to be done about them......
75

drew 33,

24/03/2008 10:26:55
67 lac,
Yep, we could learn a few things from New Zealand. With a population about two thirds of Scotland they killed on the roads 440 in year to March 2008, up from 370 the previous year. One thing, their police are better at arithmetic at least they keep the statistics up to date and not 9 months in arrears.
76

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 24/03/2008 10:28:41
#82 Dream on. That's just not the case. You'll be monitored no matter how many times you change lanes and leaving by a different lane than the one you entered is a fallacy that will prove very expensive if you believe it.
77

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh. 24/03/2008 10:30:18
#82 - really??
78

Bogmyrtle,

Peterculter 24/03/2008 10:30:20
Wonder how much road improvement of the A77 could have been financed by the 3/4 million spent on cameras??
79

Kirk View,

Angus 24/03/2008 10:34:21
A great idea but needs one step further - introduce the cameras and then cut the 70mph speed limit to 50mph and the 30mph to 20mph and thereby cut emissions and reduce the climate impact of the motor car .... oh and make cruise control mandatory on all cars and you do not need to worry about the speed!!!
80

Anthony,

Glasgow 24/03/2008 10:45:26
The use of speed cameras is an example of a good principle being abused. It's a good idea to calm traffic around areas where accidents could result from even minor speeding. But they have been seriously abused, as for example along Dumbarton Road in Glasgow.

There is a particular part of this long road, which is ambiguous in terms of the maximum speed. It isn't clear if it's a built up area or not, because of the proximity of houses to the road (their unusually well back from the road). Did the Council put up road signs to cure any confusion? No, they put up hidden speed cameras! So the object here clearly wasn't road safety, but the entrapment of motorists, and raising of revenue via fines. Needless to say police were also stationed right at these confusing parts of the roads as well.

Lots of people got penalty points on their licences (the police launched a 'zero tolerance' campaign on that same very stretch - but nowhere else along that part of the road). Criminal records were acquired, jobs lost, and families broken up. An indication of what happens when state power is abused, and bad people get to hide behind good causes.
81

starmann,

south wales 24/03/2008 10:45:38
what next
tachographs for cars
computers that lower speeds for you
"big brother" is not just a channel 4 show
82

2dogs in D.C.,

24/03/2008 10:46:20
If you really hate the notion of speed cameras, take a paint ball pistol to the lenses. If you don't hate them, drive the speed limit.
83

eDUCATIon,

24/03/2008 10:50:02
The A77 has been reduced to a 50mph on the stretch leading up to the Prestwick roundabout......the reason.....an unmarked Police car whacked into another vehicle crossing the carriageway killing the driver.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6071980.stm
84

Sas,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 10:51:17
#85 Of course I'm not against policing by consent, which is a broad concept, i.e. that communities accept that the police are acting on their behalf and in their interest, and have the right to do so. What you said was "If you want to police me you'll need my consent" - policing by consent is not a matter of the police asking each individual which laws they would or wouldn't like to obey, which seemed to be the drift of your original post.
85

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 10:56:14
SAS

Literary device, mate. get an IQ
86

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 10:58:10
It would be nice if the police were to spend some time looking at the 93% of accidents where excessive speed is not the cause. (For those people who say 1/3rd of accidents are speed related, this definition includes things like driving too close and driving too slow!)
87

Sas,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 11:00:23
#99 Does resorting to cheap put-downs count as argument in your book?
88

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 11:03:40
I love statistics, but I like to know their origins, since 75% of all statistics are made up. Where do you get yours?
89

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 11:03:52
Anyway I am just playing devil's advocate to wind up the smug. I really don't condone reckless driving but my own propensity is to drive faster than I should, and if caught or pranged would expect and deserve just desserts.

If I were to follow the most outraged on this post with a radar I guarantee I'd catch every single one speeding. Excessive no? This is what happens in some of the US states. Every police car has a radar and it is explicitly about supplementing income. They even have 55,45,35 mph signs at 100m countdown to catch the slow-to-brake.

Even my driving instructor long ago told me that in urban traffic, keeping up with the flow is the more safe, better option than slavishly nailing the needle on 30 or 40 whatever.

90

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 11:06:53
101

I though it quite a good put-down since you exhibited not the slightest sign of disingenuity in misrepresenting my words, rather you hadn't actually understood them.
91

Upbeat,

24/03/2008 11:09:09
85 Voltaire,

"So Upbeat. I've never had a speeding conviction. How about the average driver? How 'bout you?"

This does not say that you have never had a speeding ticket does it...or is that just another " literary device ;-)

And , as you asked well over 2.5 million miles in 34 countries around the world. In all types of vehicle from Tractors to the biggest lorries. But I don't claim to know it all, or feel I am above the law, and that i have to give my " consent" before I can be brought to account.

Ever hear of a duty of care towards others , or Social reponsibility .? ( This , in case you ask, is the same responsibility that will ensure that when you pile up ...and you will... there will be an ambulance dispatched to pick up the bits, and a National Health servce team of professionals to try to mend you again.)
92

Purlie Wilson,

Melbourne 24/03/2008 11:09:17
Well must admit that every time I visit the UK some of the speeding drivers leave me in their wake, however despite thousands of Km's I have only spotted on serious accident and that was someone car going up in smoke.

From experience with "timed over " distances the biggest hassle are either those drivers apparently stuck in 1st gear and one has to accelerate time and again to get round them hence screwing up your timed over distance. Alternatively strings of trucks creating the same problem. In other words driving conditions are fraught with problems with timed over distance applications.

Yikes

93

cabrach loon,

europe 24/03/2008 11:10:20
what I keep asking myself is why are uk roads so bad and why is the country littered with cameras / could it be a) that there are kickbacks going into bureaucratic pockets, b) staff are so damn lazy they prefer sitting at desks looking at video screens instead of getting out there and showing a physical presence, yet c) everyone knows tv and camera images can be doctored and edited. The whole scenario is way out of control and d) if all that goes on in the uk is so marvellous and wonderful why do not other countries do the same.
All I can say is thank God they do not.
So getr with it and voite yourselves a change of govt and an effective and cleaned out administration instead of an overheavy lazy inefficient dirty one!
Get to the polling booths next time or you are all doomed with something worse than communism!
94

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 24/03/2008 11:10:39
I love these average speed cameras. Everyone sits in the one lane doing 50 mph, bricking it in case they get a fine. Yet if you start off in one lane, drive sensibly at a speed north of 50mph and switch back to the other lane before the next set of cameras, the system has no record of your speed.* Six months on and no tickets...yet.

* As told to be by a traffic cop patrolling the M74/M6.
95

Exiled Leither,

24/03/2008 11:10:49
#88
You are right they do still monitor you but as you have changed lane there is no way of telling your average speed as the radius of corners is diferent etc, indeed it is not legaly possible to convict anyone on a dual carrigeway with the average system unless you monnitor the whole road with cctv then physically go out and mark where the lane change/ changes, took place and then ,with a tape measure, measure the exact distance the car drove.
So really an expensive waste of time unless fitted to a single carrige way and even then you could say you overtook another car thus changing the ditance you drove etc etc. waste of time and money really. not that the police will tell you that.
Speed is not the problem generally it is driving habbits. Tailgaiting, driving too slow, constantly breaking, handheld phones, aggresion, not letting people in at slip roads etc these are far more dangerous than speed, and don't start on young drivers either as I know that when I was 20 I was a better driver than many 50 year olds I know. now I am older and still I consider my self a safe driver, ofcourse so does everybody else, but I have never had an accident and in the few cases where one was imminent I was driving in a manner which allowed me to avoid it.
Yet I got three points in the autumfor doing 80 in a 70 on the A92 at Kirkcaldy at 0800 on a Sunday mornining! Good use of my tax money, no!!! there were only two vehicles on the road, me and the(Unmarked) van behind the bush at the side of the road with a cammera poking out the back, it is a wide open dual carrige way with good surface and weather was great and it was daylight.
Although the van was not clearly marked and was not on prominent display which they should be, it would cost me so much more to argue it in court and so I paid the fine took the hit to my otherwise perfect(with full no claims)insurance premium and became a criminal,
This is just a tax, by a police system which has lost its way and thinks it now runs
96

Biker,

Ayr 24/03/2008 11:10:50
The bthought of more of these monstrosities on our roads is heartbreaking. More policing is required and less cameras. The problem with these things is that the cannot differentiate between good and bad driving, and fail to see what has happened prior to being caught. More traffic cars and fewer machines.
I also take issue with the report that accidents have halved due to these things on the A77.
The one high speed death was in fact a copper on his way to a call, doing in excess of 100mph and most of the others were below the posted speed limit.
If the average speed cameras were so effective , why was there a need to reduce the limit to 50mph on the straightest and clearest stretch of this road?
97

Am-Bodach,

24/03/2008 11:11:42
The deployment of "average speed" cameras is highly desirable - these devices will make a significant contribution to road safety. Counter arguments based on "yet another tax on the innocent motorist" seem tenuous at best. A "speeding tax" is not compulsory - anyone can elect not to pay simply by driving within the speed limit. Moreover, if all external costs of motoring were passed on to drivers (climate change, particulate-associated mortality etc) motoring taxes would rise massively. So average speed cameras get my vote - hopefully the "tail-gaiting camera" will be invented in the near future.
98

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 11:17:21
#103 More safe for whom?

One of the key reasons for the 30mph limit in built-up areas, and the 20mph in residential areas, is to reduce pedestrian fatalities from collisions with vehicles. There is strong empirical evidence to suggest that when "the flow" is flowing at 30mph, the risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians is radically reduced compared to even 35mph.

I think average speeds through town, outwith congested areas, have dropped in recent years as this message has hit home. Driving around 30mph is far less likely, these days, to result in being tailgated by an irate following driver.

So while I agree that keeping with the flow of traffic is important for a number of reasons, we should all aim to ensure that the flow flows at 30mph in a 30mph zone.

As an aside, I have a sneaking suspicion that the introduction of 20mph zones has made adherence to 30mph limits more likely. It used to be that 30mph was the slowest we were asked to go, but now that we are being asked in some areas to go more slowly, 30mph seems to be easier to deal with.
99

Am-Bodach,

24/03/2008 11:37:02
"There is strong empirical evidence to suggest that when "the flow" is flowing at 30mph, the risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians is radically reduced compared to even 35mph."

The kinetic energy of a body (i.e. car, HGV) increases with the square of the speed (1/2 mv>2) - ye cannae change the laws of physics - however inconvenient these may be to speeding motorists !
100

Exiled Leither,

24/03/2008 11:41:38
we have the technology now to stop or catch tailgaiters, dangerous drivers etc. all it really requires is a decent cctv system with a zoom function, however it would just be used to convict people going fast as opposed to actually taking an objective look at the cars who were causing a threat even if they were not breaking the speed limit. of course although cheaper to install it would require actual humans with actual brains and perhaps some training and an objective view to be employed and that wouldn't fit in with the way this country is run now.
Sugestive safe speeds and a attitude more towards polite and safe driving is what is needed in this country, a radical change in the direction of policing I know but lets face it the current regime isnt working. I am of course refering to open highways and motorways not in town, I do believe in built up areas there should be strict control of speed. not speed bumps but cameras that don't break your car. and harsh penalties for those that break them. however I will bet that most convictions for speeding are on open roads, not outside schools. but then again at three in the morning perhaps laws should be relaxed. smart policing not draconian is what we want.
101

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 11:45:26
More and more fines from the road user who travels at a safe speed of 80 miles an hour.

Will this extra cash be put into our roads. Hell no.

It will be given to benefit scroungers and local councillors to cover the increased cost of booze and groceries.

When are people going to wake up and give Labour and the SNP the sack?
102

Charles MN,

24/03/2008 11:46:36
According to:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/172974/173025/221412/221549/227755/285672/Article4ContributoryFa1.xls

the top ten causes of accidents are:

Failed to look properly
Failed to judge other person's path or speed
Careless, reckless or in a hurry
Poor turn or manoeuvre
Loss of control
Travelling too fast for conditions
Slippery road (due to weather)
Pedestrian failed to look properly
Following too close
Sudden braking

You will notice that exceeding the speed limit doesn't appear. Perhaps if the police and road engineers started to do something about the issues here the number of road deaths wouldn't be increasing.
103

Davy,

The city built on 7 hills 24/03/2008 11:48:55
And we wonder why
We have a drink problem in the UK
Keep oppressing the masses and the masses will turn to booze.
Wives will get beat up kids will turn in to terrors.
And we wonder why
Keep the oppression up
You cannae have a fag You cannae drive your car
You have to pay tax on everything
And get constantly ripped off from everyone who has the power to do so.
And we wonder why
Shame on all, except the honest people of this once fine country.
104

,

24/03/2008 11:49:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

Exiled Leither,

24/03/2008 11:50:03
113 true! but a set of railings at the side of the road would negate the equation all together.
A step back from the situation and wider view of the problem is the only way forward. tunnel vision is not a good thing. In the town I live there has been two children hit on the same stretch of road in the last three years one of them fatally. it is a forty limit and the kids were mucking about at the side of the road and either jumped or fell into the road and were hit in one of the incidents the car was only doing 35 not speeding but pedestrian was seriously injured. a camera would not have stopped this but a fence would.
and as for the main problem in this part of the world (Fife) which is boy racers hitting trees on back roads and killing themselves. well they know the risks and only they are to blame for their deaths.
106

Biker,

Ayr 24/03/2008 11:51:16
Good points Charles and I agree.
107

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 11:54:36
113

It may be true that the laws of physics change only slowly, but the technology of braking has changed dramatically. If you are driving at a speed that results in you hitting a pedestrian at 30 then either you were not concentrating, or were doing 40+ when you applied the brakes, or a pedestrian has been naturally selected by stupidity or depression to hurl themselves in your path.

Although I have chosen today to wind up the anti speed brigade, I do drive sub 30 in residential areas and if there are parked cars, I am constantly looking through windows for heads and under cars for tiny feet and driving slower still.

On roads where there are no pedestrians, however....

vroom
108

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 11:55:33
Another money-making,danger-causing idea.

Notwithstanding any other arguements, the crash statistics have steadily worsened since the introduction of speed cameras. The standard of driving has noticably worsened since the introduction of speed cameras.

These SPECS devices are the most dangerous of the lot as they encourage the bunching together of vehicles. They also infringe the basic law that everyone should be treated equally. You can ride a motorcycle through an area covered by these things at whatever speed you like without fear of prosecution because a motorycle does not have a front number plate.

You cannot measure road safety in MPH!
109

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 11:56:05
118

too intelligent for this crowd :-)
110

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 11:58:29
#121 Or the pedestrian is a child who hasn't thought through their actions. And yes, of course children should be taught road safety and supervised and all the rest of it, but there will still be instances when a child steps or runs out into the road and gets hit. Which is of course why you, and any other good driver, keep a constant look-out for such eventualities; but it is also a very good reason why you, and any other good driver, should maintain a safe speed at all times.

111

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 12:04:17
124

How many children have you seen crossing motorways in the last decade? (Ignoring those using the pedestrian bridge)

How many times have you managed to even get up to 30 miles an hour in the city in the last decade? (Ignoring those times when there is no-one to have an accident with)

This is another ram raid into the pockets of the employed to fund the next boon doggle project, such as personal assistants/life-coaches for scum-bags.
112

Am-Bodach,

24/03/2008 12:04:35
"Failed to look properly
Failed to judge other person's path or speed
Careless, reckless or in a hurry
Poor turn or manoeuvre
Loss of control
Travelling too fast for conditions
Slippery road (due to weather)
Pedestrian failed to look properly
Following too close
Sudden braking

You will notice that exceeding the speed limit doesn't appear."

Er - speeding appears in #3 and #6!

"Notwithstanding any other arguements, the crash statistics have steadily worsened since the introduction of speed cameras."

When interpreted correctly (rta fatalities normalised against kilometres driven) speed cameras have been highly effective. Indeed several peer reviewed studies provide compelling evidence in support of GATSOs.

In addition to the road safety aspect, reducing traffic speeds on motorways is a means of mitigating climate change. The Oxford University Institute for Environmental Change has estimated that enforcing existing speed limits would reduce carbon emission by 1.0 million tonnes/yr; reducing (and enforcing) the motorway speed limit to 60 mph would save 1.9 million tonnes carbon/yr
113

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 12:07:20
#122 Where do you get your information about "crash statistics" steadily worsening since the introduction of speed cameras?

As a fellow Edinburgher you are surely aware of the astonishing improvements in road safety that have happened here over recent years? Accidental child deaths from pedestrian/vehicle impacts on the roads have been almost eliminated. Blackspots have seen reduced numbers of accidents.

I'm quoting from the City of Edinburgh Council and the Lothian and Borders Camera Safety Partnership. Who are you quoting from?
114

subrosa,

24/03/2008 12:10:19
We can all mention roads which require upgrading or sensible speed limits.

But this is just another tax, pure and simple. It's nothing to do with safety. If it was to do with safety then the police would ensure all the eastern europeans round here are prosecuted. They drive madly, without insurance or tax and cause serious situations for the average driver.

It's just another tax.
115

McMillar,

Fife 24/03/2008 12:11:35
A lazy tax to penalise motorists even further. Saves the police getting involved as they have alienated too many people already.
116

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 12:13:41
#126:

"Er - speeding appears in #3 and #6!"

Err, not it doesn't.

3. Careless, reckless or in a hurry -- means driving without due care and attention or being in a hurry to make progress and therefore taking chances. An example of this could be trying to force one's way past a queue of traffic on the inside and collecting someone turning into a junction up ahead.

6. Travelling too fast for the conditions -- means driving faster than is appropriate. An example of this could be driving down a road in thick fog at BELOW the speed limit.

"exceeding the speed limit" means driving faster than the posted limit regardless of any other factors. This does NOT constitute a danger in itself---especially if the limit has been set artificially low in order to make money.

I "exceed the speed limit" frequently, but I never indulge in #3 or #6. Perhaps that is why I continue to have an excellent crash record.
117

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 12:16:07
#126:

Ha! Ha! Ha! I've just noticed...

"has estimated that enforcing existing speed limits would reduce carbon emission "

What? so driving slower is going to cause less THICK BLACK SMOKE to be emitted from your exhaust?

If you really believe that rubbish, how can you ever expect to be taken seriously?
118

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 12:16:54
#125 It is more common to be able to drive above 30mph in the city than not. Main routes at peak times perhaps run more slowly on average, but most roads at most times do not.

Since you doubt what I say, allow me to give you a precise example from my own experience. A few years ago, before the pedestrian crossing was installed at the bottom of the Pleasance, I was driving up from the Cowgate on an evening when the Fringe was in full flow and there were cars, taxis and lots of people milling about the entrance to the Pleasance courtyard. There was no queue of traffic, so my speed was not externally affected.

I probably reached 30mph about 100 hundred yards before the Pleasance, but slowed to around 20mph as I went past. I must confess that that wouldn't necessarily always be my approach to such a situation, but in this instance I was very glad it was, because as I reached the sports centre entrance, a child of around 9 or 10 ran straight out in front of my car. I braked, but I would have had essentially no time to stop. Luckily he reached the traffic island before I reached him.

These things happen. You cannot stop them happening. But it is right that we should try to minimise both their occurrence and their seriousness.
119

Charles MN,

24/03/2008 12:17:57
#126

"Er - speeding appears in #3 and #6!"

No they don't. If they were exceeding the speed limit that would have been listed as well. Speed can be a factor in an accident even if the speed limit isn't exceeded.
120

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 24/03/2008 12:19:02
#116 No mention of speed limits in the 10 greatest causes of accidents.
Only......... careless, reckless or in a hurry.
loss of control.
travelling too fast for conditions.
following too closely.
sudden braking.

Each of the above are the classic signs of the speeding driver and each and every one of them show what a bunch of morons drive cars.
121

Charles MN,

24/03/2008 12:31:33
#135 Is that the best you can do? Surley sensible people would prefer to have an accident at 4MPH. We could enforce it by having someone walk in front of every vehicle with a red flag.
122

Eddie the Expat,

Home Counties 24/03/2008 12:31:33
Here's the way I see it.

Maintain the speed limit = low risk of speeding fines hence keeping my own money

Reduce speeding fines (points on licence) = low risk of losing the same licence so continue driving.

Pass safety (sorry speed) cameras without being flashed = less revenue for the government hence sends them somewhere else.

Unfortunately so many drivers do not follow this thinking so all of the above fails. Hopefully not with me.
123

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 12:34:55
132

Let me rubbish your precise example, precisely.

1) Accidents happen at precise spots where the Department for Providing Jobs to the Undereducated and Talentless Apes in the Name of Social Justice (DPJUTANSJ) have put no facilities for crossing the road.

2) Accidents happen at busy international arts events where the DPJUTANSJ haven't temporaliy closed throughfares.

3) Accidents do not happen over the mean average of your journey.

4) Had you been travelling at 30 these cameras wouldn't have stopped you and you wouldn't have broken any laws.

5) You could fly down one half of the street at 70 stop for a burger and then take off at 70 (all in a 30) and the cameras wouldn't know you stopped for a burger and wouldn't clock you.

6) You can raise lots of cash for them and spend create more jobs at the DPJUTANSJ

124

Wolfman,

Kinross 24/03/2008 12:35:29
If 1mph less = 5% reduction in accidents then 20mph less = 100% reduction - problem solved!

Don't you just love statistics?
125

Busymale,

24/03/2008 12:35:37
C,mon guys, of course its needed - how else are we going to be able to fund "stress related" early retirement for the public sector workers? We need to find every opportunity to allow them to keep taking the piss!
126

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 12:40:20
#138 Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in discussing the issue. Clearly not - you just want to rant against "the man". Oh well.
127

Am-Bodach,

24/03/2008 12:41:25
#130

I note your comments - however you are wrong to imply that there is no link between speeding and traffic accidents. Many peer reviewed studies demonstrate the dangerous consequences of speeding, and the importance of speed cameras in mitigating accidents:

Characteristics of speeders

Journal of Safety Research 2006;37(3):227-32

“Speeders were younger than drivers in the comparison group, drove newer vehicles, and had more speeding violations and other moving violations on their records. They also had 60% more crashes. Speeders are a high-risk group. Their speeding behavior is not likely to be controlled without vigorous, consistent enforcement, including the use of automated technology.”




Speed enforcement detection devices for preventing road traffic injuries.

Cochrane Database Systems Review 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD004607

“the consistency of reported positive reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies suggest that SEDs [speed enforcement detection devices] are a promising intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths.



Speeding drivers' attitudes and perceptions of speed cameras in rural England.

Accident Analysis and Prevention 2006 Mar;38(2):371-8. Epub 2005 Nov 23.

“There is evidence that excessive speed leads to an increased frequency and severity of road traffic accidents” “It was also apparent that many respondents displayed a lack of awareness of the link between speed and collisions.” “Manipulators often acknowledged that their style of driving was dangerous; however, they failed to link this to their own behaviour. It was evident that many defiers and manipulators did not perceive speeding as a serious traffic law violation.”


128

Niadh,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 12:41:48
"Speeding is a dangerous offence, which puts other road users at risk, and these cameras should help to encourage drivers to maintain a consistent, safe speed within the limit."

How wrong and narrow minded this is.
It is not speed in and of itself that is the problem but inappropriate speed.
70mph along a Motorway is perfectly legal. But if it is raining heavily and the road is busy it is plain stupid BUT still legal.

"Reducing the average running speed of vehicles by just 1mph would reduce the number of accidents by 5 per cent."

I would really like to know how tis figure was arived at.
A study done in Canada about 10 yeas ago now proved that reducing the speed limit by 5mph actually increased the accident rate.
They eventually increased the speed limit by 5mph which had the effect of reducing the accident rate.

Like all things goverment related they have got into the habit of only telling half of the story.
129

Wolfman,

24/03/2008 12:44:36
Duncan #138 does make a good, and proven, point in that you only need to obey the speed limit in these areas if you know that you will pass through the second camera otherwise if you are inclined to speed then average speed cameras are a wast of money.
130

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 12:48:31
141

I do want to discuss the issue and have done. Clearly you don't and are just playing the man yourself.

Average speed cameras calculate average speed.

Take a 1 mile stretch of road at a 30 mile an hour limit.

12.01pm I pass the camera travelling at 30.

12.02pm [1Second later] I slam my foot down putting tracks of rubber down as I open up my turbo-charged beast of a machine and tear away like crap off a shovel for half a mile.

12.03 I park my car and buy a newspaper.

12.05 I tear away from the kerbside with the same joy at how powerful my turbo-charged SUV with bullbars on front to mash kids heads off putting loads of rubber and smoke down.

12.06 I see the camera and slow to 30.

The camera recognises that I am a safe driver travelling at an aveage of less than 30 mph.

WTF?

This a tax you clown.

131

Charles MN,

24/03/2008 12:50:49
#126 #134
The point I was trying to make in #116 is that we seem to have got too focussed on speed and alchohol when talking about road safety while ignoring many factors which cause far more accidents.
132

One True Voice ,

24/03/2008 12:56:07
146

I have some good news for you: This tax is OPTIONAL.

Drive within the law and you will not be required to pay another penny.

Great, eh?
133

One True Voice ,

24/03/2008 12:57:18
147

Let us not allow our failure to address other problems to inhibit our attack on those who drive too fast.
134

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 13:02:28
148

All taxes are optional.

Just quit your job if you live in Glasgow and pay no tax.

Get up the duff if you want a free house and so on.

The point is they will use this to get people doing 80 on deserted motorways.

They will use this to charge fees to people doing 35 on deserted country roads.

They will never adjust the speed limits for new technologies to make them fair.

They will never use this technology to catch someone doing 70 in a 70 through patches with snow or ice on the road.

They will never use this technology to catch drunks doing 20 in a 20 outside primary schools.

We are prisoners of a nanny state who does not recognise the rights of the majority in using common sense and discretion.
135

Niadh,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 13:11:21
#53 Quiet Reader.
The solution to your problem in fairly simple.

Fill in the N.I.P. with the details of the car owner and attach a letter stating the following.
1.The owner has filled in but is not accepting that they were the driver. 2 people are insured and neither can remember who was driving on that day.
2. Having filled in the form the police CANNOT use it as evidence against you in a court of law as you have NOT been cautioned in the Police and Criminal Evidence act.
How long after the alleged offence did this N.I.P. arrive?
They are Legally required to have it sen to you within 2 weeks. If it is sent outside this window the whole thing goes in the bucket.
Ask for the photo and check the speed manually. You can find the suitable calculation online. There have been a number of incidents where the camera has recorded a false speed due to reflection off of other vehicles on the other side of the road.

The other thing I would like to know about speed cameras in general is how do they catch drunk, drug, stupid and dangerous drivers? What about cars without MOT or insurance?
Drivers without a license? drivers not paying attention to others on the road, being courteous or following general common sense rules of the road(can we start with LANE DISCIPLINE)?

Did you know that some of the mobile cameras don't work on bikes? They can easily read a stationary bike (and even a wall) as moving at 45mph?!?!
Mobile cameras MUST be targetted on a flat surface(ie number plate) to get an accurate reading. Seen a flat surface on the fornt of a bike lately?

You can also get strange speed reading if the system is locked onto the rubber of the wheels and not just on bikes.
136

Graham Barnes,

Gravesend, Kent 24/03/2008 13:25:07
I totally agree with no 73, Joppa Jock. Here in Kent we have the same problem; foreign vehicles travelling through the county from Dover and Folkestone, making the M2 and M20 at times a nightmare. Many of these vehicles aren't even roadworthy, they are often stopped and checked and a high percentage are found to be in dangerous or unroadworthy conditions. We do have these cameras on some of our A roads, and they do seem to be effective, no argument there. But it does seem as if our government are too concerned about attacking 'crime committing' motorists than those committing other crimes. The average motorist has for some time now been a social pariah that the government wants to hit time and again, as if taxes aren't enough for them. It does seem as if the installation of all these speed cameras are for revenue purposes more than they are for safety.
137

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 13:47:55
I find the comments of the people who advocate speed cameras really funny.

When a speed camera gets installed, it is the result of a statistical blip.

Frequently, if you bother to use your eyes and not be hooded winked by the propaganda, you'll see that along with a new speed camera, quite often you see a new road surface, new white lines and possibly even new lighting.

Are you people honestly trying to convince everyone that a freshly laid grippier road service isn't responsible for a reductions in collisions due to the restoration of shoter stopping distances and a polaroid camera on a pole is responsible?

Get over yourselves, the only reason the accidents start in the first place, is because of the incompetance of decades of worthless government who've allowed the infrastructure to fall into such disrepair that now 40% of britains roads don't meet European Safety Standards.

The evidence is before your eyes, but by all means, be a sheeple and follow the directives and propaganda of incompetant government.
138

,

24/03/2008 13:51:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
139

Sedov,

Scotland 24/03/2008 13:51:44
I'm all for making our roads safer as long as it for safety and not just making money as many of the speed cameras were. Problem is that speed is a minor factor in safety, I nearly got run over the other day with a guy in a transit who did a u turn with one hand because his other hand was holding a mobile phone and ran right on to the pavement in front of me. As a biker, I understand that the average speed camera can only take a picture of the front number plate of a car thus motor cycles are ok - anyone know if this is correct?
140

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 13:54:31
The only reason these blogs exist is to get the masses arguing with each other, the pro and anit camps bitterly divided allows authority to continue with it's program of not spending money where it should be spent.

I, on the other hand, will continue to sit back and watch as authority continues to overplay it's good fortune in speed cameras, because eventually, as the premiss is unsound, it is only a matter of time till some one in authority with good conscience begins to ask, 'why with so many speed cameras on our roads today, are casualties continuing to rise?'
141

rifkin,

canada 24/03/2008 13:55:46
Surely with technology advances something can be done to car engines to allow for for instance good acceleration but restricted top speeds or whatever it takes to offer an alternative to the current prolonged attempts to find a punitive solution.
142

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 14:04:01
151

The system does not lock on to anything. It sends out a pulse of given frequency content which bounces back at some reduced intensity from everything it hits. The original signature can be seen in the reflections and recovering the signal from the noise at the highest amplitudes and calculating the doppler shift gives a speed for the most reflective thing in the beam direction. This cannot be tyres and does not need to be flat. The large moving lump of metal, the car, will shine through the signal processing with an accurate speed.

And this is not the basis for conviction. All it does is take two photies at intervals over which the electronic delays are vanishingly small. These pix can be aligned with road markings to give position at two times and therefore speed. This eliminates the possibility of contesting the doppler radar which is only the trigger for the flashes and photies.

Works on bikes too but harder to id the bike because of their number plate obscurity, angle and size.
143

Biker,

Ayr 24/03/2008 14:05:44
Thanks Alternative (122) now they will be watching for me on my bike. he he he he
144

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 14:08:56
rifkin, it was tried back in the moped restriction days, it just resulted in good business selling non restricted parts and youngsters could get away with clear violations because apparently their vehicle was restricted and incapable of the alledged offence.

As I've said earlier in this blog,

when authority manage to prove to me that a system they swear is a road safety device, actually starts to deliver road safety, instead of allowing casualty statistics to continue to rise and that takes four years to catch 'one' motorcyclist who doesn't want to play by the rules and outright ducks the system.

Then I may begin to take it seriously, in the meantime, I'll just sit back and watch as the 'Emporer Shows Off his New Cloths'
145

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 14:17:59
and before anyone says 'Yeah, but if a person driving a restricted vehicle gets caught, the penalty must be severe to prevent him doing it again'

May I just point out

Caught by who? there aren't any police on the road, because we've got speed cameras instead.

Although the government won't admit thats what the speed camera policy is for, an overall saving in police pay, if you pay attention, you can see the signs.

ACPO Med Huges was quite clear when he said, we ACPO's have been campaigning for years to get road casualty reduction to have at least the same funding as theft of a kitkat from a corner shop, the government hasn't backed up it's words on road safety by setting the correct targets and funding the police appropriatly.

Mismanaged, incompetant, government, thats why we have antique 20 year old polaroid cameras masqaurading as policeman on our roads today.

Do you feel safe when all the evidence proves taht you're not as safe as you were 20 years ago? ..is it because you're stupid?
146

Niadh,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 14:21:46
#158 I was talking about mobile cameras initally. Did you actually read ALL of what was written??
"Did you know that some of the mobile cameras..."

The mobile cameras as used out the back of most of these vans do not always use RADAR. In fact most of them these days use laser tech and these must be locked onto a flat surface to get an accurate reading.
Go ask your local copper to point one against a wall and move the aim point along the wall. See what speed you get out of it. This applies particularly to the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte
You are talking about stationary cameras. And yes they still do get confused. I have read in the past 6 months of 4 instances of photgraphed vehicle( usually bike) being listed as over the speed limit despite the calculations involving the road markings showing that the photographed vehicle was UNDER the speed limit. This the police attirbuted to signal bounce off of a bus going the other way. Hence the radar signal taking longer on the second pic to get back to the camera and the incorrect speed being recorded.

Details of some of these can be found in the follwoing location

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2007/December/december-17-23/dec1707speedcameras/?&R=EPI-97594
147

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 14:24:47
The evidence is all there... why do you think the patently transparent argument 'Speed cameras reduce accidents at camera sites by 'x' amount' is it because of the camera being placed there?

Of course not, did you notice the nice grippy road surface and freshly painted white lines as you drive past your new camera?

Fact: Governments own figures, a properly positioned speed camera reduces casualities by less than 10%, correct maintainance of road surface, white lines, lighting, signs and other associated street furniture reduces accidents by up to 35%.

It's a con, nothing more ..a con.
148

Professor22,

lochgelly 24/03/2008 14:30:39
MORE KOJAKS, LESS KODAKS

Lets stop policing on the cheap!
149

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 14:30:59
Regarding mobile speed camera vans, in Kent this weekend, police have had to drop another 120 cases because of what they call 'operational error' following allegations by an insider of 'speed fixing' by empoloyees of a Kent Camera partnership.

This follows another recent event using similar equipment in Lancashire where 300 convictions were overtuned following a forced investigation.

The BBC proved that mobile technology was prone to operator error and yet these well meaning obsessive civilian run organisations are still allowed to deploy it bringing the speed camera policy into further disrepute. ..Why?

Speed fixing, so far, can't be proven, however, incompetence clearly is.
150

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 14:32:31
Of course it's not a tax. Taxes are COMPULSORY. You be as well argue that you get a fine for stealing, that's a tax. Don't break the law, you don't pay. What is it about the subject of driving and speeding that makes so many otherwise sensible people so feckin stupid?
151

One True Voice ,

24/03/2008 14:35:59
164: You pay.
152

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 14:36:42
166

Of course this is a tax. Taxes are NEVER compulsory and must only be applied to one group of people.

If you don't want to pay tobaccos tax - Don't snoke.

If you don;t want to pay spirit and beer duty - don't drink.

If you don;t want to pay income tax - don't work.

You must be a policeman to for an idiotic view like that.

153

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 14:38:18
As far as the reliability of statistical evidence provided by camera partnerships.

Consider if you will an article in 'what car' late last year, where a senior partnership spokesman proudly proclaimed that "Owners of Top Marques, such as Ferrari's are the most responsible drivers and owners of ordinary familiy saloons, in particular the Ford Mondeo are least likely to be responsible drivers, as, in his words, it's clear that more family saloons are caught speeding than sports cars such as ferrari's"


Leaving what cars editor what should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 75, Mondeo's out number ferrari's by about 3000 to 1, so the statistical likelihood of catching as many ferraris speeding was very unlikely.

...and we trust these people to keep our roads safe and report reliable information to governments to make road safety policy on? ..this wasn't some junior fellow, this was the head spokesman.

anyone else laughing at the complete insanity of all this yet?
154

One True Voice ,

24/03/2008 14:39:09
150

You call it a nanny state.

Others call it a democracy.

If I quit may job I will still pay taxes (example: VAT)

Good news about this item is it's OPTIONAL.

If I dont want to pay it I wont. Just drive within the speed limit. Now, what's all the fuss about?
155

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 14:39:38
Draco you thick polisman...

.. here are some more taxes that are not taxes by your latest logical brainwave.

Petrol tax is not a tax because if you don't want to pay it don't drive.

VAT is not a tax as if you don't want to pay it - don't by clothes.

Stamp duty is not a tax because if you don;t want to pay it don't buy a house.

Moron.

People will always travel at 80 when they are going to work at 4 am and no-on is on the motorway, perfectly safely and often by accident as the speed creeps up on deserted roads.
156

M.T.,

24/03/2008 14:41:55
73# 152#

Correct!

86#

HGV's are restricted to 56 mph by law.

If Police/VOSA find a defect on an HGV they impose an immediate prohibition. The British HGV must not only be repaired but have a complete MOT test done within two weeks. It is reported on their owners Operators Licence and Police/VOSA have the information to target the vehicle and any other belonging to the owner in the future. If the HGV is foreign, provided a repair is made, albeit makeshift, the prohibition is lifted and the vehicle is allowed to leave with no further action taken.
Of course everyone is aware that foreign HGVs travel in this country free of charge while one British HGV send the Treasury well over one hundred pounds in one working day with fuel tax + VAT alone

I would suggest that if the government charged foreign HGVs to use our roads, they would not need to tax motorists quite so much but of course I would be wrong
157

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 14:43:46
Will these cameras be time locked. Hell no.

I can guarantee you like all other cameras they will be hidden to the side of a road in a stretch of road with poor speed markings and deceptively open views.

BANG! Gotcha! May look like a 70 but that was a 50. £100 or jail.

Look at this dribbling policeman who is too lazy to run after a violent criminal, he makes us good money so gets a pension and early retirement (if he lies) as a bonus.

158

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 14:48:13
One word to all the people who show support for speed camera policy.

Those of you who've not studied all the information freely available to anyone about speed cameras, stop believing all the propaganda and look it up for yourselves, you'll change your mind.

and

Those people who show their support for speed cameras and show that they have a knowledge of the system, we know your probably work for a partnership, because no one can be in possesion of the facts and still be that stupid.

The objective of changing social attitude has failed.

Spend the money and put real police back on the road before you get anyone else killed.
159

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 14:55:14
170 One True Voice

I call it a Nanny State - you call it Democracy.

Wasn't the Nazi Party democratically elected?

What has democracy got to do with fairness or common sense?

The combined intelligence of a mob is that of its thickest member.

You just need to read the views of the dribbling polismen on here to realise that we the public must obey the law they "lay down".

£penatly and points for travelling at 80 on a deserted motorway safely in perfect conditions.

£0 and nothing for punching someone in the face.

This is a tax not justice. As even a dribbling mentalist such as yourself can see that justice is detecting real crime, not just "crime" which raises cash from those going to work at 4 am.
160

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 15:01:17
I chuckled at the mention of Nazi's, although the germans in WW2 were lead by a man man, at least they were very efficient at what they did.

If only our government were anywhere near as efficient, no, I think calling speed camera policy supporters Nazi's is giving them credit they're not due, they're just easily lead, don't understand the limitations of the technology and incompetant.

Don't worry Poland, speed cameras are never likely to gather enough momentumn to invade you like the Nazi's did.
161

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 15:04:47
176

I wasn't calling anyone a Nazi. I was pointing out claiming something is democratic does not make it good or righteous.

The real Nazi joke here is that their public rail network worked and got millions of Jews from a to b.

Ours doesn't, to force people onto the roads to tax them.
162

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 15:08:34
Fair enough then and good comment about public transport.
163

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 15:17:12
What alternatives are there to being on the road in gas guzzling vehicles?

Well, there isn't one and the ever spiralling cost of motoring, from fuel duty to speed cameras is, according to a very recent report going to produce a pensions black hole in the future, as people across the country stop paying into pensions as they attempt to stay abreast of the cost of living and continue working.

Just to put a metaphor in there, a good shepard would have the sense to make sure the gate was open before he tried to usher his flock into another field.
164

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 15:29:48
#177

For someone who can't seem to differentiate between a tax and a fine, you've a fine cheek calling anyone a moron. No-one puts a gun to your head to force you to exceed the speed limit. It's a choice, an adult thing. If you want higher speed limits, as, incidentally I would like on motorways, then campaign for them. But don't wilfully break the law as it currently stands and bleat about the consequences. If you can't equate the two, it's you who is clearly retarded.

165

geekpie,

forfar 24/03/2008 15:31:50
There seem to be a lot of contributors on this thread who have had a speeding ticket and have never quite got over the injustice.

re comment 1, I'll take a nanny state if that's what's needed to save lives and allow kids to ride bikes on the road and walk to school.

Britain has pretty soft speeding penalties. Compare with Australia or New Zealand.
166

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 15:49:11
180

I don't speed. But I do not believe in corporal punishment for those who are doing 80 in a 70 when there is no-one to have an accident with. And the same punishment for someone doing 37 in a 30 outside the gates of a primary school just after the home-time bell.

Scum-bags regularly breach the peace and useless fat and lazy police say "don't do that again." the first time.

It should be the same for driving.

Even if you kill someone as the recent case demonstrates, you will get £200 and a 12 month ban.

This is not justice, this is a tax.
167

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 15:56:42
181: geekpie

I'd agree with you and I would embrace the nanny state if it saved lives and allowed children to ride bicycles on the road and walk to school safely.

But as according to the most recent figures, there is a 13% increase in fatal collisions involving pedestrians, I'd say the speed camera policy isn't the panacea we were all hoping for.

As for softer penalties, it's not all that surprising really, there aren't any police on the road to catch persistant dangerous drivers, so the penalties are bound to be less severe.

You also don't have to be have had a speeding fine to resent the presence of speed cameras, try living a few miles away from one and continuing to watch cars pass your house at double the speed limit in the sure and certain knowledge that their isn't a patrol car there to take any notice of them doing it.

Also, try complaining about speeding drivers in your area, your average council representative will politely say, 'We've installed speed cameras in your area sir, putting regular patrols back in your area puts out the wrong message to speeding drivers'

Yeah, I couldn't quite get to grips with the logic of that statement either.

But I think the argument that only people who've been caught speeding or want to continue speeding is getting a bit long in the tooth these days
168

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 16:00:22
#182

No-one's arguing as to the injustice or otherwise of being fined for speeding ( me, it was doing 50 in a 40 at 1 in the morning on a dry, straight, empty road). But we live in a democracy. The law said 40. I got fined. I was p*ssed off but I got over it. I really can't see the point of your argument. A tax is a levy on goods, services or activities that are lawful even if mostly unavoidable (working, clothing oneself, putting a roof over your head). We don't have a choice. A speeding fine results from something that is unlawful and which can be avoided through choice. No rational person can argue otherwise. I don't know why you're trying to make is some great state oppression issue.
169

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 16:05:46
And on the subject of Australia, unlike the UK who are quite happy to turn a blind eye to the actual results of speed camera policy and continue blindly believing the self propagating propaganda. The Australians have begun asking questions in their parliament, 'why so many convictions in such a narrow band above a limit, why so few in the higher bands which could be called wreckless driving and why so little reduction in casualties.

The Australians seem to have a healthier attitude to road safety generally than the U.K. does, probably because they're actually concerned about road safety and have begun to realise that speed cameras aren't the one size fits all solution and money saving option the U.K. government thinks they are.
170

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 16:09:19
184

You can't see my point because you are thick as dung.

Why don't we fine people for stepping in dog-sh!t. Naturally it will never happen. Get real.

People can speed accidentally, you can drift to 80 easily.

First offence, warning. Second offence, considered punishment.

That is democracy, fair and open.

You get less for violent crimes. And even then the punishment meets the crimes.

No, you mark my words dribling boy, this is a tax. A central machine that churns out a ticket and has nothing to do with justice.
171

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 16:11:46
Four years it took, to catch one persistant speeding motorcyclist who was prepared to ignore the system and cost a six figure sum to acheive it in police man hours.

66 times caught on the same camera raising the middle finger, not prisoned, given a suspended sentence, not banned, but allowed to continue to drive.

Something is seriously wrong in this country if you can't complain about well documented faliures of government policy without being accused of being a criminal yourself.

The 'Emporers New Clothes' remember that fable?
172

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 16:15:12
Speed cameras are a means of making money. End of story. All those of you who think they contribute to road safety need to consider the following.

In the old days, when you got done for speeding, you were STOPPED by a policeman. This added some time to your journey time. It also gave said policeman the opportunity to lecture you on road safety in general. You learnt something. As a result, your driving skills would have improved even a little bit. Before you were stopped, you would have had ample opportunity to see the policeman and slow down. Therefore you deserved what you got on the basis of poor observation alone.

With a speed camera, you are not stopped, you are not lectured, you learn nothing (most people probably wouldn't even know or care where they were caught), apart from possibly a great deal about the legal swindle that surrounds speed cameras. You are not stopped. Nothing is added to your journey time. With modern speed cameras, you may not even be aware that you have been done until you receive a letter through the post. Coupled with the fact that these things are placed where there is the greatest chance of making as much money as possible, they are an out and out con.

The speed of travel should be determined AS A RESULT OF the consideration of many other factors. To attach absolute importance to it above anything else is to disrupt the driver's thought process and will inevitably lead to crashes. Additionally the propaganda that surrounds speed cameras leads people to subconsciously believe that provided they are driving within the speed limit, they are automatically safe---which is complete rubbish.

The only way you are gong to imporve the safety of british roads is by EDUCATION not dumb-ass cameras and revenue-raising fines.
173

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 16:16:57
#186 You really shouldn't be on the road if you can "speed accidentally". One of the basic skills of driving is to know your speed at all times.

Oh, and "democracy" is about voting, not about being let off criminal acts.

Get real.
174

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 16:17:21
Sky News has reported an epedemic of illegal drivers in this country.

Driving while banned, driving without a license, driving stolen cars, driving under the influence of alcohol, all up on previous statistics and thats presented with a reduced police presence on the road compared to previous reports.

Only a fool wouldn't be able to add it up and maintain speed cameras as any kind of solution to road safety.

Why is it happening? and what's being done about it?

Very little as far as I can see, except partnership spokesmen getting on blogs and trying to ridicule anyone who opposes speed cameras.
175

geekpie,

24/03/2008 16:17:59
#184 "People can speed accidentally, you can drift to 80 easily"

Fraid you're just not a very good driver. Try getting yourself a less powerful car and being more in tune with what your engine's doing.
176

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.,

24/03/2008 16:20:59
189 Dribbler

You shouldn't be walking the streets or drinking if you can't restrain from violence... and yet?

You have to be a policeman with this rigid and nonsensical logic, complete inablity to comprehend fairness or priorities of a fully functioning justice system.

If you endanger no-one you get an automatic punishment? Good.

If you give the same punishment to a violent criminal. Bad.

Yes, you are definately a policeman. Unthinking, unquestioning of stupid and unfair laws and unwilling to redirect resources at the real criminals.
177

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 16:26:06
Good point Bill #187.

Gatsos are only type approved to do vehicles if they photograph the REAR of the vehicle. They cannot do ANY vehicle from the front---even if they get a photo of the number plate. They are not type approved or calibrated to do so.

I think you'll find that this motorcyclist was done for something other than a motoring offence. Flipping the finger at a speed camera is always a bad idea. You wouldn't flip a finger at a copper and expect to get away with it would you? Also, driving at gatsos at VERY high speed in order to ensure they flash you is not a good idea. Even though a court cannot take an approaching speed reading as absolute evidence, they can certainly use a reading far in excess of the limit to back up a charge of dangerous driving.

A copper was recently convicted in this way. On a shout, he drove past a speed camera and as it flashed, decided to give his best cheesey grin and a double-handed thumbs-up. He was subsequently done for dangerous driving, having been photographed driving at well in excess of the limit, with no hands on the wheel.
178

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 16:28:20
The faliure of policy is obvious and apparent, as was said earlier, the change from apprehending a driver to the rather naive and quaint method of sending him or her a notice of intended prosecution two weeks after the event and hoping he or she was telling the truth about his name, address and legal ownership of the vehicle or even wether or not he or she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol has allowed an escallation in law breaking unprecedented in british society as the dramitic increase in hit and run collisions clearly show.

Until that is addressed, all other propaganda regarding road safety is rendered moot.
179

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 16:31:14
#192 You remind me of someone. Never sticking to the point, always bringing unrelated issues into an argument, and always generating bizarre insults. No, I'm not a policeman.

For the record, I think violent criminals deserve punishment too. I've never suggested otherwise.

But the point I am making is that if you choose to drive at 80, in the full knowledge that you are driving at 80, then fair enough, you know the risk you are taking and if you get caught it's a fair cop. But if you are driving along and don't realise that you've hit 80, then you need to take a good look at your driving skills, because that is downright dangerous.
180

Randomhero,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 16:34:20
When I used to walk places before I learned to drive three years ago, I used a pavement. Average speed cameras will NOT save children's lives if they walk or run out infront of cars. If these cameras are used, i know I will be more paranoid about my speed and looking at the speedo more often, hence reducing the time i have to look for potential hazards. Maybe the money they are going to 'waste' in my opinion, on these cameras would be put to better use in teaching the green cross code in schools?

I don't know about anyone else but I feel they are ruining the once pleasurable act of driving with over the top policing measures.

If you really want to make the roads safer, stop the drink/drunk drivers
181

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 16:41:24
On one side of the argument, I don't agree about accidental speeding, you are responsible for your own actions and I don't agree that speed cameras make you observe your speedo more than the road increasing the likelihood of an accident, I think that is all part of the camera partnerships well practiced propaganda mill and irrelevant to the issue.

But I don't think speed cameras do anything to improve road safety and have allowed a dramtic escalation in civil disobedience when it comes to road usage.

That is a genie that has escaped from the bottle and isn't going to be put back in, till there is a return to a professional police presence on the road where the actual dangerous drivers of illegal and unsafe cars, the alocoholics, the drug addicts and even criminals are caught before they run over your granny and not after.
182

BK,

24/03/2008 16:43:50
#109 Exiled Leither
"Yet I got three points in the autumfor doing 80 in a 70 on the A92 at Kirkcaldy at 0800 on a Sunday mornining!"

I'm glad yo hear it, you selfish, inconsiderate and dangerous b@st@rd. You should not have been doing 80 and you know that, yet you chose to ignore the law.
183

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 16:48:39
I was reading on a blog elsewhere, for the same price as just 'one' now antique GATSO style camera, you can fit 'three' exisiting police units with ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) hardware. Allowing just one qualified police officer to go back on the road cost effectively weeding out the persistant offenders and the real causes of fatal accidents.

As far as a comparison in cost effectivness against average speed cameras? ..you could probably fit out 20 or more police units, so the financial saving right across any particular county would be dramatic instead of plunging hundreds of thousands of pounds into grossly expensive technology that is already approaching it's sell by date, before it's even been erected.

There are no excuses not to put real police officers back on the road anymore and I suspect the only people who would argue are partnership managers who've become a little nervous about being made redundant.
184

Stirling Sentinel,

Stirling 24/03/2008 16:54:45
In New Zealand you can be zapped for speeding by a police car coming towards you. In this country you can only be zapped from the front by a stationary or fixed camera not a moving one. How lucky we are !!
185

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 16:56:43
ANPR isn't technology of the future, the Americans and Australians have heralded it's arrival as a major breakthrough and it is already operating in a limited sense in this country.

As with any kind of detection equipment, it is only as good as the people operating it and useless drivers aren't apprehended and if necessary their vehicles impounded (the existing unavoidable major criticism about speed camera policy) then that will also not make any difference.

Unlike speed cameras however, putting one qualified police operative behind the wheel allows instant catching of dangerous drivers cost effectively.

The administration of speed camera partnerships across the U.K. is, according to the partnerships themselves, costing in excess of a hundred million pounds a year which many consider to be wasted money when there is superior, cheaper equipment that allows real officers back on the road and the once best policeforce in the world allowed to do their jobs once more.

Now, all we've got to do, is ween spend a lot councils off their cash cow and we can go back to cost effective road safety initiatives that would bring back a return to declining casualty figures, as was the case before speed cameras were approved.
186

JayJay,

Right here 24/03/2008 17:20:11
I just love our political elite. They are just so full of ideas. If they are not raising taxes as a response to everything, they set about criminalising everyone in a car.
The roads around me, in fact just about everywhere I drive, are pot-hole strewn, bump riddled dirt tracks. And, despite having the highest rates of car related taxation in the cosmos, there is precious little evidence of any investment in bringing our roads up to 18th century standards.
Today I read that Virgin trains would be bumping up their fares even more as a disincentive to people daft enough to pay fortunes to stand all the way to their destination. It would appear that this is their response to requests from the rail regulator to improve the lot of the hard pressed commuter.
We appear to have a plethora of choices in this country. Drive, pay huge taxes and run the gauntlet of dire roads, speed cameras and new shiny average speed cameras. Or you can pay a fortune to stand in an over-crowded train and be told that the latest inflation busting rise is required to keep the riff-raff off the trains.
What exactly is the transport policy in this banana republic?
187

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 17:27:15
As far as I can tell, there isn't a transport policy in this country anymore, just a collection of easily lead gullible councils and government who'll buy anything if it appears to do something cheaper than the previous idea and get them re-elected as long as the masses fall for it as well.

Saddly for government, we're not living in the dark ages anymore and everything they do is under scrutiny.

As I said earlier, a wise sheppard would make sure the gate is open before he tries to usher his flock into a new field.

Our government just pile the pressure on and hope it doesn't bring the country to it's knees.

Rising cost of living, food on the way up, transport policy a shambles, taxation the highest anywhere in Europe, national health service on the decline.

Excellent policies there guys ..and you think the public as a whole are stupid enough to fall for speed camera policy? ..get over it, you're either good at your jobs and your policies work, or as is becoming the case more frequently, we can't wait for local and general elections and get rid of you.
188

M.T.,

24/03/2008 17:28:00
189# Duncan in Edinburgh,24/03/2008 16:16:57
191# geekpie,24/03/2008 16:17:59

Speed cameras are calibrated on a regular basis

Speedometers are put in cars when new. It is accepted that they can be out +/- 10%. They are never checked as it not even a part of the MOT at three years old, then annually.

A driver can travel at almost 80 mph while believing it is 70 mph
189

JonC,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 17:29:44
Arguing about the alleged money-driven thinly hidden agendas of the SNP (or any other party for that matter, don't kid yourself any other party would be any different) won't get anyone anywhere. A proper debate needs to address the issue, namely will reducing speed (specifically on these roads) save lives?
The fact is that claims like "Reducing the average running speed of vehicles by just 1mph would reduce the number of accidents by 5 per cent" are unfounded statistical smoke & mirrors. I would be immensely proud to live in a country populated by superhuman drivers capable of using the millisecond difference that 1mph represents to avoid an accident, but it just isn't true. Just how slow do you have to be travelling to avoid an idiot pedestrian from walking out 2 feet in front of the car? They talk about having halved the number of deaths/injuries on the A77 which they directly attribute to the SPECS being installed. Any statistician will tell you that 'halving' accidents from 4 to 2 in one year-on-year comparison is far from indicative of anything let alone grounds to spend millions of taxpayers money. In my street they introduced speed bumps, and the accident rate went from zero over a 20 year period to 2 in 2007, a phenomenal infinity percent increase, but I can imagine the laugh I would get if I suggested spending any of the local mafia's (sorry, council's) money ripping up their precious traffic calming measures.
As long as the public are distracted by petty political finger pointing instead of challenging the government on the pseudo-scientific claptrap they come up with to support these sort of schemes then nothing will ever happen.
190

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 17:38:47
Regretfully these cameras seldom have anything to do with road safety they are revenue earners, another form of taxation. If the government were to be taken seriously on this issue they would have prioritised average speed cameras outside schools and within the infrastructure of towns in places where people are most at risk.

Instead they have prioritised putting cameras on long straights on A roads or after a series of pointless speed limit changes designed specifically to catch motorists out.

Speed is SOMETIMES a contributory factor in motor accidents not always as some folk would have us believe. I'd speculate that tailgating and lack of attention are the cause of most - but do the Police (now just glorified Tax Collectors) do anything about tailgating ... no, because it's too much like hard work to prosecute. Motorists are being victimised and persecuted to keep crime figures sweet and the coffers full.

1984 is upon us and it's being sold to us as if it were for our own good. There was a day when politicians were our servants - it appears as if they wish to become our masters. I can sympathise with people who vandalise these cameras and the motorcyclist detailed in 187, if he was 'speeding' along one of these straight and empty pieces of road so avidly watched by the tax cameras, should be regarded as a hero.

Motorists against Detection (MAD) destroyed over 700 cameras last year - In the vast majority of peoples view they may be the mot popular 'criminals' since Robin Hood !!
191

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 18:21:49
Oh yes, I'd forgotten about the number of cameras being distroyed with petrol filled tyres, being pulled out of the ground with a stolen JCB or simply disabled with tape or a pot of paint.

You ever tried doing that to a real traffic officer? ..he don't like it you know.
192

Trucker,

Everywhere 24/03/2008 18:47:52
You can avoid being caught on the new SPECS speed cameras just by CHANGING LANES half way between
the two cameras!

SPECS cameras work out the vehicles average speed by calculating the time it took to drive between two camera positions.

However, under Home Office rules, speeding prosecutions are ONLY valid if a driver is filmed in the *SAME* lane from the start to the finish of each section of road covered by the cameras.

According to "Speed Check Services", who produce the SPECS cameras, the devices were approved by the Home Office in 1999,passing strict tests for use in one lane at a time.

...HOWEVER, there was not enough time or finances to extend Home Office approval tests to cover the cameras' use over two or three lanes at a time.

The company's technical director, Graeme Southwood claimed - without going it to any detail - that this loophole is not actually foolproof and that some of those who attempt to use it will still face a speeding prosecution.

Curiously, he does not state why...

Last year more than 2 million motorists were caught on speed cameras, raising £120m in revenue for so-called 'Safety Camera Partnerships' comprising police, magistrates' councils and road safety groups.

There are now 3,300 fixed cameras and 3,400 mobile devices active around the UK.

SPECS cameras have been installed at 27 sites around the UK at a cost of between £180,000 and £1.5 million PER SITE.

193

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 19:01:17
#204 While I don't doubt that the broad brushstrokes of what you say is true, a 10% variation would mean that a reading of 70 would indicate a speed of between 63mph and 77mph, and I think in fact 10% is a very rare variation - the majority of speedos in current cars are accurate to +/-3% or better (67 to 73 mph, in this case).

But in any case, even if one assumes the driver is basing his/her decisions on a faulty speedometer, that doesn't justify the "accidental speeding" argument, since that is based on not looking at the speedo at all.
194

shug t,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 19:21:08
its all about freedom..

- freedom to drive at speed of choice

or

- freedom not to get killed by speeding drivers.


I think there should be no speed limits and no speed cameras, but with that comes responsibility.. If you kill a child its automatic murder, if you kill an adult its automatic manslaughter, even if 'they stupidly walk out 2 feet in front of you'. Its up to the drivers of the killing fun-machines to predict the unpredictable and drive accordingly, and face the consequences if they don't.
195

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 19:43:54
I don't think that choice is even relevant shug t,

Whats needed is reliable policing to weed out bad drivers who don't necessarily break the speed limit.

ie, in the 30 mph limit, if two cars collide head on at 29mph, it's very possibly fatal because the combined impact speed is 58 and the trauma to the average human body would be significant, but oddly not against any law.

Quite honestly the speed limit is irrelavent if a drunk driver crashes into a push chair on a zebra crossing because he hasn't been apprehended by real police officers and thought it was safe enough to risk it after twelve pints knowing he's not likely to see a police car.

You do gooders really do need to have a rethink about a policy that so clearly lets us down.
196

Scudder,

Glasgow 24/03/2008 20:29:44
Total waste of my tax money ,, Get rid of them AND the idiots who want them put up !
197

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 20:54:59
#211 I doubt you'll accept the point I'm going to make, but I am at a complete loss as to how you manage to equate the erection of self-funding safety cameras with a reduction in policing. These cameras do not have any impact whatsoever on the operational decision-making of LBP as far as traffic policing is concerned. They are two entirely separate issues.

If you want to raise the - quite valid - issue of the underfunding of traffic policing, then please do so, but do not link it to camera safety initiatives which have never been proposed as an alternative to regular policing, and take no resource away from regular policing.
198

Enster Buddy,

Anstruther 24/03/2008 21:07:05
I see Tayside heed polisman backs this policy. Would he clarify one point please? Will he take bus drivers in the City of Dundee to task over their speeds! I have had the dubious pleasure of travelling from Anstruther, to Ninewells by bus, and can assure him that the Dundee hurl is most definately alive and kicking especially in Dundee!
On leaving St.Andrews, we are thrown from side to side as we hurtle round bends to Guardbridge, and the bus only slows down for the roundabout, proceeds through the town to the station at top speed. Leaves the station, and batters at full tilt through Leuchars, does not slow for St. Michaels, breaks the speed limits on the bridge, delivering us into Dundee stunned and seasick!
Changing busses & the situation is different. Now we have near "G" force acceleration from the stops, & whiplash injury stopping. 35 mph along Perth road, or through Blackness area, 20 MPH zones are totally ignored by some drivers, by the time we get to the hospital, not only does the patient require attention, the patients attendant is close to needing mental, and physical help, to face the journey back home!
199

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 21:12:52
The issue of underfunding of actual police was indeed raised earlier in this blog and although it would be fair to say it was never the intention of camera partnerships to take funding away from traditional tried and trusted traffic police, the government had other ideas when it accidently forgot to include targets and funding for senior police cheifs to apply to road casualty reduction prefering to focus on anti social behaviour.

It would also be fair to say that present revenue and funding for new cameras should be diverted to newer readily available superior technology to put police officers back on the road to wipe out the epemdemic of illegal drivers that speed camera policy has allowed.

Any constabulary in the U.K. that runs an unannounced clamp down on motoring crime congratulates itself on its level of successful catches, from no license or banned to drunk drivers and unroadworthy vehicles.

Which begs the question, why do they have so much success during these short campaigns, because under the blind eye of the speed camera drivers have become used to being illegal and if we're not careful, it will become part of the culture.
200

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 21:18:13
Note, all 20 mph road signs should read as,

'We know your road surface is worn out and stopping distances have increased to a point where it is dangerous to drive at even the previous legal speed of 30 mph, but we can't afford to resurface your road and other essential works, inspite of having the highest motoring tax burden of anywhere in the world, so have a speed camera, make us a bit of money and be quiet"
201

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 21:51:18
#208:

Trucker:

"You can avoid being caught on the new SPECS speed cameras just by CHANGING LANES half way between
the two cameras!"

Absolutely correct. However, on long stretches covered by many pairs of SPECS, how do you know which camera is paired with the other so that you can be in the correct (or wrong) lane in order to avoid getting done?

You could feasibly have every other camera paired so on a two lane carriageway, a lane swap, followed by another lane swap would get you done. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping them from doing that and there is no way of telling whether they have or not.

That is one of the things that makes SPECS so dangerous, people will change lanes suddenly to try to avoid them.

The simplest way is to drive between lanes, that way none of them will get you---however that brings its own hazards. If they weren't there in the first place, the roads would be a lot safer. Combined with the bunching effect created by SPECS, lane swapping or straddling can be very dangerous under some circumstances.

Personally, I would rather not drive in close proximity to other drivers, whose skill I have no knowledge of. I'd rather get my foot down a bit and get out of their way.
202

Euan,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 22:00:51
Everyone here should have a look at this link, very interesting and informative stuff.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PMZXQS0Q2BR5PQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/motoring/2007/11/10/mfspeed10.xml&page=1

203

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 22:01:11
#213:

Duncan,

The phrase "self-funding" is the key here. Stick up a load of cameras and they pay for themselves. Put 1000 police officers through extensinve training at Hendon, Alloa or whatever and you spend millions of pounds. There is no way that in their first few years of probation, a rookie cop is going to generate enough fine revenue to cover their training. The goals in (traditional) policing are vastly different to that in any case.

I'm not arguing that they are spending money on speed cameras rather than on police officers. What I am saying is that speed cameras are the easy way out because they very quickly pay for themselves in fines generated.

Speed cameras are the worst thing that has happened to road safety and are costing hundreds, if not thousands of lives a year. The experiment has failed. Get rid of them.
204

Euan,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 22:06:29
#219

Could not agree more.

Have you noticed they have actually removed a fixed-location camera on the A71 just near the turn-off for the M8?

When I saw them taking it down I couldn't believe it!

Here was a camera that existed purely as a money-making tool and nothing else, it was even situated in an accelaration zone from 30mph - 50mph..

Very confusing but good news for motorists.
205

Drum Major,

Brisbane, Australia 24/03/2008 22:09:34
Average Speed Cameras a brilliant idea. Ordinary fixed speed cameras are generally a waste of time as the real culprits slow down for these then accelerate once passed them.

Mobile speed cameras are set up as ambush sites. They pick a place where drivers are likely to exceed the speed limit for a short period like at the bottom of a hill or in the 80 kmh (50mph) zone between the 60 kmh (37mph) and the 100 kmh (60mph) zones where people are just accelerating from 60 to reach 100 at the 100 sign. Most motorists see these as revenue raising exercises with nothing to do with road safety.

Speed humps and other "traffic calming" do nothing for the calming of motorists as they weave through chicanes and get shook up over humps while wondering how much damage is being down to their steering, suspension & tyres, not to mention their own and passengers backs.

These cameras will allow the average motorist to drive at or near the speed limit without being stung for minor transgressions or having artificial road hazards to force them to drive at less than half the speed limit. Those with cruise control in their cars will be very pleased.

However none of the above should be allowed to replace actual policing of the roads by police vehicles. These must not sit in ambush. Marked cars must be seen to patrol but unmarked cars are the even greater deterant. Nothing slows people down more than seeing someone else pulled over by a seemingly ordinary car that all of a sudden has blue and red flashing lights come on from inside the cab. How many more are on the road?
206

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 22:58:15
Mobile speed cameras of the lti 20:20 type are rapidly falling out of favour with forces across the country, as the well documented ease with which they can produce false readings due, alledgedly, to user incompetence, very recently Lancashire had to overturn over 300 convictions after an investigation was forced.

Just this weekend a partnership in Kent admitted incompetence against allegations of a civilian operator 'fixing' speeding fines. A further 120 convictions were dropped inspite of a suspension of use in the Kent area just before christmas for this very issue, they were investigated and declared as fit for purpose and put back into service only to make it as far as March before their use came back under scrutiny.

There is no substitute for real policing and every instance of incompetent camera partnerships brings the whole concept further into disrepute.

Apprehension is the only deterant and speed cameras don't apprehend, it is clear to anyone who's concerned about real road safety and not concerned about loss of revenue that speed cameras aren't fooling anyone and letting those prepared to chance their arm to get away with clear illegal activity.
207

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 24/03/2008 23:01:40
The police state gets an tighter hold on us.
208

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 23:08:01
I'll explain the issue of speed cameras versus police and cloned plates or motorist identity theft again, a growing problem as criminals spot and exploit yet another loop hole in the system.

It's simple really, drive around with your mobile camera phone, spot a car like yours and take a quick pic, get a set of plates made up, it's not as difficult as you might think, they're just laminated perspex there's nothing clever in their manufacture to stop anyone doing it and selling them.

Then drive around as much as you like, don't even bother with road tax or insurance, because your clone is paying those and you're not likely to get insurance if you're banned anyway and if you have a crash, you just run, get another car and start all over again.

Lets face it, without police on the road to challenge you doing it, speed cameras will just accept you as the real person.

As the real person who's been cloned, the problem is in the mechanism. Under current law, if you fail to give the identity of the driver at the time of the offence, they fine you.

If you take the case to court, you obviously won't have any evidence to prove you weren't the driver unless you were really lucky and was having a heart attack in a hospital at the time and your whereabouts is on their records.

So, taking the case to court is likely to cost you thousands of pounds in lawyers fees.

On the other hand, you can get rid of it by paying sixty quid.

Which is fine until the next time your clone gets caught, because by then you won't have a leg to stand on because you've admitted your previous offences and are a serial speeder and a menance to society. So then, if you've figured it out, you sell the car, passing the batton to the next poor sucker who's going to end up loosing his license.

Excellent system don't you think? ...here's to more speed cameras, I commend them to the house.


Think!! Speed Cameras, openning the door to breaking the law.
209

M.T.,

24/03/2008 23:09:57
209# Duncan in Edinburgh,24/03/2008 19:01:17

When I realised that the Government was going to use speed cameras purely for fund raising in the guise of Health & Safety and I knew that I could not tell what speed I was travelling at unless I looked at the speedometer, I became a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

I drive many types of vehicles during the course of my work and so can tell when I am driving at 30 mph by staying in third gear but as I drive mainly automatics, I find myself in the position that I could inadvertently exceed the speed limit. I consider that I am driving safely because I am trained to anticipate. However I cannot tell my exact speed unless I check the speedometer of the vehicle I am driving which I am aware may be totally inaccurate.

I consider this to be grossly unfair and feel that all speedometers of vehicles should be calibrated at the least during the mot test
210

Euan,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 23:14:54
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PMZXQS0Q2BR5PQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/motoring/2007/11/10/mfspeed10.xml&page=1

Very interesting reading folks.
211

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 23:36:25
As soon as you allow the emotive issue of speeding into the conversation the authorities know you'll devide the arguement into two camps and weaken it.

So successful has this propaganda strategy become, that the authorities have come to believe their own propaganda and fail to acknowledge the clear well documented limitations of nearly twenty year old technology that wouldn't recognise a drunk driver if he crashed into a speed camera and threw up on it.

Speed limits are not the issue, the inadequancy of speed cameras in comparison to real police is.

We all know politicians are of limited inteligence, if you have a successful company such as the manufacturers of speed cameras telling politicians exactly what they want to hear, the politician is going to fall for it over and over again.

Get some senior officials out on patrol with real traffic police, so that they can see what they're up against in the real world and then get them to explain why they've signed contracts with foreign companys to supply equipment that could even hope to deal with 10% of it.

212

Chris W,

25/03/2008 08:31:45
It is claimed that SPECS cameras have reduced accidents on the A77. Where are the accident figures for the whole area for the periods before and after the SPECS cameras were installed? What other 'improvements' have been made to this road? What is the truth?
213

Iain MS,

Newcastle 25/03/2008 15:12:08
I only looked at the first 50 or so comments, but WOW! And I thought the real crackerjacks only logged on to rant about Star Trek issues! Some incredible comments which if I didn't know were genuine I'd have thought were all part of an elaborate joke.

Lets see.....

'Drivers would find the widespread use of cameras intrusive' Oh dear me. Apparently burglars find the presence of the police obtrusive too.

'....useful in regulating stretches of road where it is important to protect road repair workers. This usefulness is restricted, however, to that part of the day when the workers are working – yet we see no evidence of these cameras being deactivated at other times.' Hmmm, so when the lanes are narrow it should be OK for the nutters to put their foot down. No danger to fellow drivers then.

'Urban average-speed cameras are much more dangerous. They will turn drivers into speedo-focused cruise missiles, watching the clock permanently rather than watching the road – just where there are most hazards.' Well, what can I say! So true. Things like passing tests are a real hindrance for some people. Get rid of them too.

'If some idiot driver goes through a red light at a pedestrian crossing and hits a car or runs down a pedestrian, if some fool drives over a Zebra crossing and smashes into a mother and pram or some damn cyclist bowls down a pavement and knocks down and kills an OAP I do not care if they were doing an average of 29.9mph or 31mph!

IT DOESN'T MATTER! It is NOT only the speed that causes the problem- it is what a driver does that causes the problem.' Interesting. So as there are a number of issues which create danger on the roads we should just ignore ALL of them!

'....a serial speeder and a menace to society'. I assume this was sarcasm. Obviously driving however you want and at whatever speeds you want is the best way to make the roads safe (oops, I've gone all sarcastic too).

'Orwell strikes again. What's amazing is how much police fasci
214

Iain MS,

Newcastle 25/03/2008 15:13:43
.........

'Orwell strikes again. What's amazing is how much police fascism people submit to without so much as a whimper. Like the path to the gas chamber.' a) everyone knows that public transport is generally laid on to the gas chamber b) I think the Klingon convention might be next door mate.

'If the government persists in persecuting motorists, possibly the most put upon social group in the country, they can vote with their feet.' Trying to ensure that idiots don't speed. It's a slippery slope indeed. Before we know it the police will be trying to prosecute murderers for killing people.

FINALLY.....Taxation by speed camera! Having had a couple of speeding fines/points in the past for minor speeding, I sat down an thought of a clever way of avouding the fines/points in future, which also keeps my human rights intact. Try this one out. The authorities can really do nothing about it. What I do is try not to drive excessively over the speed limit. If I do, and I'm caught, I tend to think it's MY fault, noth the Facist/Nazi/Police* (delete depending on your level of paranoia) state. xx
215

Bill Whitehead,

25/03/2008 17:17:51
Welcome to the conversation Iain, nice to see a speed camera spokes person finally join the fray.
216

Working in the Private Sector,

01/04/2008 17:28:33
114 said "More and more fines from the road user who travels at a safe speed of 80 miles an hour.

Will this extra cash be put into our roads. Hell no.

It will be given to benefit scroungers and local councillors to cover the increased cost of booze and groceries.

When are people going to wake up and give Labour and the SNP the sack?"

Absolutely spot on and before all the Holy Willies tell me that 80 in a 70 is a crime and that they "never" speed ... I don't believe you cos it's not credible

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.