RE: Speed camera onslaught halted
Monday 7th November 2005
Cash generator no more?The Government is making major changes in the way that speed cameras are managed and financed, in a bid to scotch the 'cash for cameras' tag. However, the reaction from motoring groups was lukewarm, saying that it was too little, too late.
Speed camera onslaught halted
Cash for cameras to end but row rumbles on
Cash generator no more?
The main reform removes the profit incentive from the speed camera partnerships by ensuring that their funding comes instead directly from the Department of Transport. The aim is clear: the authorities want to dispel the perception that speed cameras are there to generate profit rather than improve road safety. However, from a motorist's point of view, the result of being flashed by a working speed camera remains the same.
According to a report in The Times, the key reforms are:
- Cash for cameras scheme ends
- DfT wants fewer speeding tickets issued
- Cameras to be installed only as 'a last resort'
- Camera officials must work closely with Police and highways authority
- Digital only cameras in motorway road works (SPECS)
The Government also said it wants camera partnerships to emulate Lincolnshire, where road casualties have fallen and fewer tickets have been issued. What's more, Lincolnshire said that it needs no more cameras, unlike most other partnerships, which make annual applications to erect more.
Ministers said they approved of the Lincolnshire partnership's policy of having camera officials working alongside police road safety officers and council highway engineers.
"If all partnerships were made to work together in this way they would think much more carefully about the alternatives to cameras. We need to have a better deal with motorists to convince them that cameras are not about making money", said a spokesman.
However, the department is also planning to give partnerships greater flexibility to use cameras where there is a speeding problem but no recent history of crashes. Roads beside schools will be given priority.
Reactions
The Association of British Drivers came up with five reasons why the reforms will make little difference. It said that the plan:
- Leaves unaccountable and secretive camera partnerships intact
- Allows the continued use of cameras
- Diverts some camera funds for more road markings and signs
- Retains the focus on speed limits, not appropriate speed for the conditions
"We're pleased that the government has finally admitted that cameras are about cash, not saving casualties," said ABD spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie, "but cameras will still be used, and still be funded from fines."
The DfT said that speed cameras save lives and that it will soon publish a report to bolster its claim. DfT's plan will also remove the current restriction allowing cameras only on roads with a proven accident history. Instead, cameras will soon be placed anywhere designated as an area of "community concern."
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said: "The DfT appears to be moving in the right direction, but it is far too little and far too late. TRL595 proved that fixed cameras were dangerous in motorway road works, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Speed cameras do not make our roads safer and never will. They are a dangerous distraction and must be scrapped. They are founded only on bad science, faulty logic, commercial interest and oversimplified thinking. We will not be able to restore road safety trends until the DfT finally wakes up to road safety reality.
"After 12 years of speed cameras there is still absolutely no scientific evidence to show that they have an overall beneficial effect on road safety. This is hardly surprising, because they make road safety worse.
"Safe Speed's tireless work, pointing out gross flaws in the figures and the assumptions, is really making a difference. No other road safety organisation is focused on the principles that gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place."
Smith said that this year has seen a series of 'interesting' events in the camera programme:
- Partnership staffing freeze
- Camera report severely delayed
- Freeze on camera sites
- Chief Police Officer Richard Brunstrom quits his ACPO (association of Chief Police Officers) roads policing job
- Hypothecation scrapped
Links
Discussion
I think our council have already started with Gatso's for 'communit concern'. One main road in my area seems to had some over kill. Pedestrian crossings almost every 200metres, bus lane with cameras and 4 gatso's in a 3 mile stretch in between the lights etc. I cannot find any reports of these sites being black spots for speeding or accidents etc.
Thanks to Trevor MacDonald on ITV for that programme, I have some geeky info to read on road signs and markings....If I see anything in my borough that is wrong, I will post my findings to the local Gazette....should be interesting as I know of 1 Disable bay already inaccurate.
Sorry rambling a bit here
Thanks to Trevor MacDonald on ITV for that programme, I have some geeky info to read on road signs and markings....If I see anything in my borough that is wrong, I will post my findings to the local Gazette....should be interesting as I know of 1 Disable bay already inaccurate.
Sorry rambling a bit here
cf with all the other laws that are so completely enforced /people punished - ie mugging, violence, burglary, et,tec,etc,etc. Where their actually HAS been a victim, vs in the majority of case a 3 miles ph over a limit which, even the police say would make sense if their were flexible limits on roads.
B
B
jazzyjeff said:
Sorry GreenV8S, I've lost sight of your argument... are you saying its in the government's interest to allow people to break the law with impunity?? :-O Please expand.
Oh come on!
It's clearly not in their interests, but I don't see them cracking down on drunk drivers or dangerous drivers the way they do on speeders.
How many police forces have any TrafPol at all dedicated to say stopping drivers for drink driving or DUI?
There is so much emphasis on something so trivial, yet total or apparent ignorance of much bigger problems on the road.
So I think it's in the governments interests to stop people breaking the law with impunity, but it's about time they focussed on the laws that NEED enforcing, not ones that are already covered massively yet make no significant difference to road safety!
Dave
So lets get this straight, instead of cash from fines going to the Camera Partnerships, and the "excess" going to the treasury, now the idea is the money goes directly to the treasury, and some of it gets paid to the Camera Partnerships.
Well, good job Gordon Brown hasn't got a reputation for fleecing our hard earned from us! That will really improve the situation.
Instead of getting what the Partnerships couldn't manage to spend, he gets the whole lot, and gets the option to decide how much to give to the partnerships. Much the same as he takes our taxes, and decides how much to give back to the local councils. The councils then mug us for higher council tax. Camera Partnerships will just mug us for more fines, by putting cameras in areas of community concern. This is direct taxation.
Now we sit back and wait for the first reports of "nasty" drivers mowing down kiddies outside schools because he was looking at A) the speedo, B) an area 10ft above the pavement, instead of C) the road, D) the pavement, all because a speed camera could be there. When this happens I'll tell the wife to start driving my kids to school. Joined up Government...they couldn't handle joined up writing!
Well, good job Gordon Brown hasn't got a reputation for fleecing our hard earned from us! That will really improve the situation.
Instead of getting what the Partnerships couldn't manage to spend, he gets the whole lot, and gets the option to decide how much to give to the partnerships. Much the same as he takes our taxes, and decides how much to give back to the local councils. The councils then mug us for higher council tax. Camera Partnerships will just mug us for more fines, by putting cameras in areas of community concern. This is direct taxation.
Now we sit back and wait for the first reports of "nasty" drivers mowing down kiddies outside schools because he was looking at A) the speedo, B) an area 10ft above the pavement, instead of C) the road, D) the pavement, all because a speed camera could be there. When this happens I'll tell the wife to start driving my kids to school. Joined up Government...they couldn't handle joined up writing!
Mr Whippy said:
It's clearly not in their interests, but I don't see them cracking down on drunk drivers or dangerous drivers the way they do on speeders.
How many police forces have any TrafPol at all dedicated to say stopping drivers for drink driving or DUI?
There is so much emphasis on something so trivial, yet total or apparent ignorance of much bigger problems on the road.
So I think it's in the governments interests to stop people breaking the law with impunity, but it's about time they focussed on the laws that NEED enforcing, not ones that are already covered massively yet make no significant difference to road safety!
Dave
Hm. Nicely put. It’s infuriating that police often don’t seem to care about the idiotic and sometimes shocking habits I see being performed by drivers, right in front of their windscreens. I catch myself looking at the squaddie and saying “holy sh*t - did you not just see that?”
Speeding is easy to enforce (24/7 with no police presence required) and successfully prosecute, so they go for that instead. This brings me back to this whole idea of ‘community concern’. Some busybodies in every community will think drivers are going too fast in their area, and soon their local roads have more furniture than DFS. It’s a very, very bad idea.
It also lets the gov/police off the hook. I very much doubt communities will listen to pressure groups like SafeSpeed et al. and the drive to put more emphasis on proper education, training, habits etc. suddenly becomes irrelevant.
The dumbing-down of British motoring seems well on its way, I fear...
>> Edited by ubergreg on Monday 7th November 15:36
ABD said:
- Allows the continued use of cameras
- Diverts some camera funds for more road markings and signs
- Retains the focus on speed limits, not appropriate speed for the conditions
The usual rather embarassing reply from the 'ABD' (though I'm a British Driver and they don't represent me).
Every political party advocates the continued use of cameras.
Whats wrong with clear road markings and signs?
And that old chestnut - we're all good drivers so please trust US to decide how fast we go. Yeah, right. Whats appropriate for one person scares the living daylights out of the guy coming the other way, hence we have speed limits like every other civilised society.
Why can't the ABD and Safe Speed greet what is clearly a step forward with a more positive response? Maybe its because their motives are more Conservative/anti-Blair than they are pro-motorist?
spnracing said:
And that old chestnut - we're all good drivers so please trust US to decide how fast we go. Yeah, right. Whats appropriate for one person scares the living daylights out of the guy coming the other way, hence we have speed limits like every other civilised society.
We are already responsible for deciding how fast we go, as well as many other aspects of our driving that are critical to safety. Speed limits are beneficial to establish general expectations for speed in an area, but that doesn't mean that it is sensible or desirable to strictly and rigorously enforce speed limits. In fact I would say that the opposite is true: I think that penalising drivers harshly for exceeding an arbitrary speed limit when it is safe to do so teaches them the wrong priorities and detracts from road safety rather than improving on it.
Unfortunately in our society we always work to and provide to the lowest possible denominator.
So we cater for the crappest drivers, we provide for the laziest layabouts, we pander to the whims of the biggest whingers.
Nothing will happen until our government provides and serves the majority, and until that day we'll have a country effectively run by the minorities wants and desires, to the detriment of the majority.
Right now, community care or whatever it's called, is yet more exercising of this pamper to the whinger ideal.
If road safety policy actually had a direction or an effective mandate, then they wouldn't need NIMBY's in the community to tell them where camera's are needed, they'd already have targetted such places if they were required and done something about it.
However, as per usual the government bends over backwards to shaft the majority to suit the minority, and we get idiotic, emotionally connected yocals worrying about their children, and want to put up a camera as a knee jerk reaction to "speed kills" propoganda.
A good government would provide decent road awareness to children at school, and put across that roads are dangerous, however, a lone parent or two probably argued against that for some totally STUPID reason, so the government in their infinite wisdom withdrew it.
This country will never get out of this hole while it's run by idiots who pamper for some ideal that only handfulls of people desire. And the more their sentiment is spread through policy, the more we think it's right.
Get out now, while you still can. Better still, stand up for those who burn camera's, stand up for your right to call christmas christmas, use free speech daily to offend someone, exercise your rights before we think we can't, or we stop exercising them and they dissapear without us realising!
I truly believe Labour are evil for their lies, propoganda and deception of the general public to suit the minority. The worrying thing is they think they are doing the right thing because we continue to vote the assholes in!
Dave
So we cater for the crappest drivers, we provide for the laziest layabouts, we pander to the whims of the biggest whingers.
Nothing will happen until our government provides and serves the majority, and until that day we'll have a country effectively run by the minorities wants and desires, to the detriment of the majority.
Right now, community care or whatever it's called, is yet more exercising of this pamper to the whinger ideal.
If road safety policy actually had a direction or an effective mandate, then they wouldn't need NIMBY's in the community to tell them where camera's are needed, they'd already have targetted such places if they were required and done something about it.
However, as per usual the government bends over backwards to shaft the majority to suit the minority, and we get idiotic, emotionally connected yocals worrying about their children, and want to put up a camera as a knee jerk reaction to "speed kills" propoganda.
A good government would provide decent road awareness to children at school, and put across that roads are dangerous, however, a lone parent or two probably argued against that for some totally STUPID reason, so the government in their infinite wisdom withdrew it.
This country will never get out of this hole while it's run by idiots who pamper for some ideal that only handfulls of people desire. And the more their sentiment is spread through policy, the more we think it's right.
Get out now, while you still can. Better still, stand up for those who burn camera's, stand up for your right to call christmas christmas, use free speech daily to offend someone, exercise your rights before we think we can't, or we stop exercising them and they dissapear without us realising!
I truly believe Labour are evil for their lies, propoganda and deception of the general public to suit the minority. The worrying thing is they think they are doing the right thing because we continue to vote the assholes in!
Dave
spnracing said:
- Allows the continued use of cameras
- Diverts some camera funds for more road markings and signs
- Retains the focus on speed limits, not appropriate speed for the conditions
The usual rather embarassing reply from the 'ABD' (though I'm a British Driver and they don't represent me).
Every political party advocates the continued use of cameras.
Whats wrong with clear road markings and signs?
And that old chestnut - we're all good drivers so please trust US to decide how fast we go. Yeah, right. Whats appropriate for one person scares the living daylights out of the guy coming the other way, hence we have speed limits like every other civilised society.
Why can't the ABD and Safe Speed greet what is clearly a step forward with a more positive response? Maybe its because their motives are more Conservative/anti-Blair than they are pro-motorist?
I agree that it can not be left to the individual driver to decide the appropriate speed for the conditions and that we do need speed limits - personally I think that limits should be lowered to 20mph in certain areas - but speeding is the only victimless crime in this country but the most viermently enforced. The amount of resources wasted in setting up the network of cameras etc.. is obscene - and it is a waste. JC has quite rightly stated that as soon as a speed camera takes a photo it ceases to be a safety tool.
This is a step forward. The first of many I hope (naive I know). But I note that the artical made reference to the 'success' of Lincolnshire's partnership in improving road safety. No mention was made of the two counties who showed the largest improvement to road safety. Or is that because they accomplished this without the use of camera's?
What ever the details the main point is this:- Every motorist in the country needs to continually evaluate their driving skills. Driving is a luxury and a privillage not a rite - the incredibly small number of people who are totally reliant on their cars is irrelevant to national policy as they can be easily identified and given relief(!!!). The responsibility of driving falls squarely on the driver.
The introduction of compulsary re-testing every five years, an insurance disc to indicate the car is insured, and more (and better trained) Traf Pol would improve road safety.
However will these measures be initiated? No because the vast majority of motorists feel they have the rite to drive regardless of the consequences to others.
Nobody is a perfect driver, very few are good drivers.
Finally I don't see how you can be Anti-Blair and conservative. New Labour is conservative, that's how they won back in '97. Does anybody know when the Conservatives ceased being the working mans party and labour took over? And as we now have two parties who share the same ideals who is the oppersition (the lib dems are a waste of space after all)?
Mr Whippy said:
A good government would provide decent road awareness to children at school, and put across that roads are dangerous, however, a lone parent or two probably argued against that for some totally STUPID reason, so the government in their infinite wisdom withdrew it.
Bollocks.
www.hedgehogs.gov.uk/main/main.html
Adverts regularly on children's TV too.
Mr Whippy said:
I truly believe Labour are evil for their lies, propoganda and deception of the general public to suit the minority.
Who's telling the lies now?
The minority are the PHers who think its OK to drive as fast as they like everywhere.
Green V8S - I see your point but as always don't agree, speed limits are meaningless unless they are enforced.
spnracing said:
The minority are the PHers who think its OK to drive as fast as they like everywhere.
I certainly don't think it's OK to drive around as fast as you like - ref my last reply. The cause of all this 'debate' is the basis in which this huge cash cow of cameras has been justified by the government. And that is the ridiculous notion that 'speed kills'. As long as you're below the speed limit you're driving safely. This is an idiotic premise on which to base national policy. And those who advocate it are equally idiotic and really don't deserve to voice their opinion. I don't get the feeling that PHer's want the rite or feel they have the rite to drive everywhere at Warp factor 9. They simply state that whilst driving you must be in and maintain control of your vehicle regardless of speed.
I was driving home on Saturday night and the car infront of me could not maintain a constant speed, did not notice changes in the speed limit/road conditions, they wandered across the carriageway (blocking two dual carriageway sections and a host of other inept manouvres in the four miles I was behind them. Their speed did not go above the speed limt though so, according to the Government they are a safe driver. Incidentally I passed two TrffPol cars both dealing with drivers of modded cars who were most likely speeding.
I have acrued during the 14years I have held my driving license 20 points in total (15 for speeding). I've not had an accident or injured anyone though. Yes I was upset at getting the points but I had done the crime etc... But where does that put me? According to Government policy I am a danger on the road who will kill thousands. But I have not had any accidents?
When I was at school (not that long ago) we had Police Officers and Railway drivers giving the whole school talks on how dangerous the road and railways are. It got through to me. Is this still done (the talks not the getting through to me)?
spnracing said:
Green V8S - I see your point but as always don't agree, speed limits are meaningless unless they are enforced.
I am not suggesting that there should be a complete free-for-all on speed. But we should bear in mind the purpose of the speed limit and not enforce it blindly and rigorously just because we have the technology to do so. Exceeding the speed limit doesn't necessarily make you dangerous, and complying with it doesn't necessarily make you safe. The goal is (or should be) safety. The laws, and the methods we use to enforce them, are a means to achieve that and not an end in their own right. But at the moment speed enforcement seems to have gone all Judge Dread.
Ok SPN and Mk1fan, lets have a little tete a tete on why speed limits and scameras are just a load of old tosh shall we?
Ill kick this one into touch and lets see what kind of responses you come back with.
First off; Do we NEED a speedometer to drive SAFELY?
I suggest that NO we dont, as thats already what the vast majority of drivers do, although they may well need education in other areas of their driving habits.
This is backed up by the facts that most journeys are completed without incident and a miniscule amount of journeys (compared to the BIG PICTURE-which is what we are all interested in) encounter any untoward occurences. Its also corroborated by the fact that drivers exercise judicious usage of speed BELOW the speed limits, ie they use DISCRETION and are ENCOURAGED to do so!
Secondly; If a speedo IS NOT needed to drive safely, then we DO NOT NEED speed limits, or speed enforcement! Full stop! Unnecessary!
Your only possible argument against what ive said is that some drivers will still travel too fast, but my friend, thats not an enforcement issue, thats an EDUCATION issue.
Feel free to comment.
Regards DF
Ill kick this one into touch and lets see what kind of responses you come back with.
First off; Do we NEED a speedometer to drive SAFELY?
I suggest that NO we dont, as thats already what the vast majority of drivers do, although they may well need education in other areas of their driving habits.
This is backed up by the facts that most journeys are completed without incident and a miniscule amount of journeys (compared to the BIG PICTURE-which is what we are all interested in) encounter any untoward occurences. Its also corroborated by the fact that drivers exercise judicious usage of speed BELOW the speed limits, ie they use DISCRETION and are ENCOURAGED to do so!
Secondly; If a speedo IS NOT needed to drive safely, then we DO NOT NEED speed limits, or speed enforcement! Full stop! Unnecessary!
Your only possible argument against what ive said is that some drivers will still travel too fast, but my friend, thats not an enforcement issue, thats an EDUCATION issue.
Feel free to comment.
Regards DF
Deltafox,
Good point. People don't drive around with their eyes glued to the speedo (that would be stupid) and their are numerous ocasions when conditions dictate that driving along a road at the speed limit is dangerous.
There is one argument to your point though.
Everyones driving standards and abilities (these are two seperate qualities) are different. As previously stated in this thread you need to factor in for the lowest common demoninator. Speed limits allow for this and crucially allow for a benchmark by which people can be judged and therefore held accountable for their actions. Hence I accept my speeding convictions as I was guilty.
If there were no speed limits then chaos would ensue. Not due to the (generally poor) levels of the majority of the public but because of those who decide to drive beyond their skill levels (this isn't just restricted to the young or those who have just passed their tests). Additionally you could find yourself coming up behind someone traveling at twice or three times their speed outside an infants school at lunchtime on a wednesday in May. If there were no speed limits then no one could be held accountable for accidents. You couldn't be accused of traveling too fast for the conditions if their are no speed limits. Against what do you judge the speed.
I agree there is a desperate need for education. It is a joke in this country that after a few hours of tuition you can be let loose to control a potentially lethal machine. I feel that drivers should be retested every five years. And I know that people will wimper on about how they need their cars for work, well drive resposibly and properly (arwful phrasing I know) and you won't loose your license. Yes it is going to be a pain in the rear to have to sump up for the tests. But, as previously said, driving is a privilage not a rite.
You are right that the vast majority of journies do not end in an accident and that people travel at a speed that reflects the conditions. But this speed is also governed by the speed limits - 'I was only just over the limit officer'.
A final point in this epic post is that the ordinary car has changed sooooo much in the last 25 years, ney the last 6 years. Even the most basic of new cars have improved acoustic suppression, power steering, airbags, ABS etc... My six year old bora has more airbags than I have rooms in my home! (I am poor and unhappy) Drivers are increasingly being disconected from the sensory indicators assosiated with 'driving'. You drive a mk1 golf and a mk5 golf back to back and you'll get what I mean. Modern cars are comfortable and relaxing. So drivers don't feel that they are driving the speed they are.
Good point. People don't drive around with their eyes glued to the speedo (that would be stupid) and their are numerous ocasions when conditions dictate that driving along a road at the speed limit is dangerous.
There is one argument to your point though.
Everyones driving standards and abilities (these are two seperate qualities) are different. As previously stated in this thread you need to factor in for the lowest common demoninator. Speed limits allow for this and crucially allow for a benchmark by which people can be judged and therefore held accountable for their actions. Hence I accept my speeding convictions as I was guilty.
If there were no speed limits then chaos would ensue. Not due to the (generally poor) levels of the majority of the public but because of those who decide to drive beyond their skill levels (this isn't just restricted to the young or those who have just passed their tests). Additionally you could find yourself coming up behind someone traveling at twice or three times their speed outside an infants school at lunchtime on a wednesday in May. If there were no speed limits then no one could be held accountable for accidents. You couldn't be accused of traveling too fast for the conditions if their are no speed limits. Against what do you judge the speed.
I agree there is a desperate need for education. It is a joke in this country that after a few hours of tuition you can be let loose to control a potentially lethal machine. I feel that drivers should be retested every five years. And I know that people will wimper on about how they need their cars for work, well drive resposibly and properly (arwful phrasing I know) and you won't loose your license. Yes it is going to be a pain in the rear to have to sump up for the tests. But, as previously said, driving is a privilage not a rite.
You are right that the vast majority of journies do not end in an accident and that people travel at a speed that reflects the conditions. But this speed is also governed by the speed limits - 'I was only just over the limit officer'.
A final point in this epic post is that the ordinary car has changed sooooo much in the last 25 years, ney the last 6 years. Even the most basic of new cars have improved acoustic suppression, power steering, airbags, ABS etc... My six year old bora has more airbags than I have rooms in my home! (I am poor and unhappy) Drivers are increasingly being disconected from the sensory indicators assosiated with 'driving'. You drive a mk1 golf and a mk5 golf back to back and you'll get what I mean. Modern cars are comfortable and relaxing. So drivers don't feel that they are driving the speed they are.
mybrainhurts said:Doesn't it depend on one's literal interpretation of "...as fast as they like everywhere."?
The minority are the PHers who think its OK to drive as fast as they like everywhere.
Please name a few names. I've never heard anyone here say that.....
Methinks you need a limited slip imagination, old boy.......
That could be construed as "as fast as they choose/judge to be right/decide is appropriate everywhere". That is entirely different from "As fast as the car will go everywhere". I think that many PHers would agree to the former, while no half-sensible creature would agree to the second.
Someone on this thread or a similar one lately made the oft-repeated comment that a person does not have a "right to drive". To the contrary, a person has a right to pursue his (or her) interests at the very least until that impinges on the interests of others. It is the government, its bureaucratic extensions and the mob that have a case to answer: How do they justify imposing themselves upon the individual and his pursuit of his interests?
Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff