Speed camera means revenue
Gatso not safety-related admit police
 Open road camera all about revenue not safety |
|
Image courtesy |
An investigation by the East Anglian Daily Times has found that crashes used to justify a lucrative speed camera had nothing to do with speed.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, the newspaper obtained reports compiled by Essex Police into the five accidents used by Essex Safety Camera Partnership to justify its decision to select the A12 near Kelvedon for a mobile speed camera site.
Road safety campaign Safe Speed agreed that cash has distorted the road safety objectives of speed cameras. Campaign founder Paul Smith said that the rules for speed camera placement ensure that cameras are placed where plenty of drivers are speeding.
Smith said that, despite the appearance of logic, what it usually means is that speeds in excess of the speed limit are safe and appropriate. It also means that speed cameras are not normally placed in narrow village high streets where speeding is dangerous.
"The vast majority of drivers are responsible and highly capable of setting an appropriate and safe speed according to the conditions," said Smith. "This blunder in the rules for speed camera placement criminalises safe behaviours and ensures that the cash comes rolling in."
Smith said, "Speed cameras are a £700 million failure. Twelve million drivers have been convicted, but road deaths are rising. Clearly it isn't working. So far only the Conservatives have pledged to put this right starting by scrapping the camera partnerships. But with millions of motorists grumbling about the injustice, maybe the other parties should be taking account of the motorists' vote in the forthcoming general election. Clearly we can't go on like this."
<i>Secondly, there must had to have been at least two collisions involving death or serious injury along the proposed stretch over a three-year period</i>
So it would appear that the 5 crashes used as examples aren't required by the guidelines to be speed-related.
Ian
>> Edited by tvrman on Friday 22 April 13:41
A police spokesman said: "Our officers carry out daily patrols on the A12 and they see speeding every day. A significant number of the crashes they deal with have excess speed for the conditions as a contributory factor."
Note "excess speed for the conditions", which as we all know is totally different to "exceeding the speed limit".
Copy the article and sent it to everyone you know including your MP. The motorist is a sitting (or should I say lame)duck for money making purposes. This injustice has to be dealt with at the top levels for something to get done.
The people have the power to change things, but we have to stop moaning and take direct action re: M4 go slow.
thanuk said:
The Home Office guidline, according to the newspaper article is:
<i>Secondly, there must had to have been at least two collisions involving death or serious injury along the proposed stretch over a three-year period</i>
So it would appear that the 5 crashes used as examples aren't required by the guidelines to be speed-related.
Sandhurst high street must be a very dangerous place it has 7 or 8 gatso's on a 2 mile streach of road, all inside the 30 mph limit
thanuk said:
The Home Office guidline, according to the newspaper article is:
Secondly, there must had to have been at least two collisions involving death or serious injury along the proposed stretch over a three-year period
So it would appear that the 5 crashes used as examples aren't required by the guidelines to be speed-related.
Exactly the point! Scumera partnerships are abiding by the letter of law, which has clearly been deliberately worded so as to permit this extortion.
Good bit of reportage, shame that the national daily's and MP's don't make more of an issue of this blatant lying and stealth taxation.
Until someone in authority finally has the balls to admit that speeding itself is not the problem, but driving in a manner which is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions/drivers level of skill is, then we're still at the mercy of these numpties.
Raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph will do no more or less than ripping down the speed cameras... i.e. it does not address the root cause of the problem.
panclan said:
The Home Office guidline, according to the newspaper article is:
<i>Secondly, there must had to have been at least two collisions involving death or serious injury along the proposed stretch over a three-year period</i>
So it would appear that the 5 crashes used as examples aren't required by the guidelines to be speed-related.
Sandhurst high street must be a very dangerous place it has 7 or 8 gatso's on a 2 mile streach of road, all inside the 30 mph limit
Nor are they required to be near the accident. Local scumera van is justified by an awful junction on the A11. Scumera parks a mile away.
Great that a local newspaper has the intelligence to understand what's really going on and to publish the truth even if it's not politically correct.
Oh, and the police for telling the truth, even if (maybe) it wasn't meant to get out.
It's what many of us have been ranting on about for months / years - that any accident is used as an excuse for a camera. (But what of the fools who believe it?)
This just flys in the face of all the research confirming people's natural self-destructive tendancies.
Here in the States we lived with the lie of "55 saves lives" for 20+ years, promulgated by the rapacious Insurance industry, mis-guided eco-nazis, & nit-wit mass-transit advocates; I feel your pain.
PetrolTed said:
Great to see a local newspaper doing some serious investigation rather than reporting on lost cats and cake fairs which is what our local paper seems to thrive on.
If only. Our local paper seems to have been written by closet Liberal Democrats. The letters page makes you want to find out where certain people live and vomit through their letterbox.
a) it'll kill the profit motive, because answering all the questions costs time, money, management distraction
b) you never know,but, as in this instance, the truth might out
Just a thought
thanuk said:
The Home Office guidline, according to the newspaper article is:
<i>Secondly, there must had to have been at least two collisions involving death or serious injury along the proposed stretch over a three-year period</i>
So it would appear that the 5 crashes used as examples aren't required by the guidelines to be speed-related.
Er, since when were they?
The Camera Partnership Guidelines make it VERY clear indeed that accidents DO NOT have to be speed related. Not only that, but a gatso can be 1km from an accident site, with mobiles sited up to 5km.
Kerchinggg, anyone?
Bottom line is things like this is hard to police, speed cameras are easy. I seem to recall a report by the Road Transport laboratories that said speed was only the third highest casue of accidents, highest (I seem to recall) was driver ability. If the police were really bothered about safety they would be addressing that.
One final thing about this (before I burst a blood vessel!) how come police expect drivers to slow down in fog i.e. use their judgement, but if you have a clear dry road with no traffic, using your judgement that a faster speed is appropriate gets you a ticket. Double standards!
Rant over!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff