Friday 19th August 2005

Official scamera thinking unchanged

Unproven ideas again presented as fact

---

Can you see it?

Government thinking about speed cameras has not changed, despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that the devices can reduce safety, as evidenced by its release this week of guidance notes for motorists. It also continues to promote the idea that, by adhering to speed limits, casualties will be reduced -- again despite the existence of evidence that this is not always the case.

The government's notes say: "The ultimate aim of the safety camera programme is to reduce casualties by ensuring compliance with speed limits and slow drivers down so that none are caught speeding. If this happens there will be a very significant further reduction in the number of people killed and injured on our roads."

It also insists that scameras are not there to make money: "Cameras are not placed to raise revenue. The bodies responsible for deploying cameras are only able to claim back their costs which ensures they have no incentive to place cameras other than to improve road safety."

The guidance seems to have been issued because of a number of cases where motorists have argued that the lack of visibility of a camera or its not being painted yellow constituted a legal defence. Sadly, this is not so since there is no legal requirement for the cameras to be visible or yellow, only guidance from the centre that this should be so.

• Read it and weep

[bunglist]

If the Scameras are not there to make money then why don't they abolish the fines and just give say 2 points for a speeding offence.

But as we all know the scameras are in position to make as much money as possible and to get drivers off the road.
:furious:

[Einion Yrth]

Government thinking

a classic oxymoron if ever I saw one.

[WildCat]

Ings comes to mind Ist nothing to do mit safety und all locals know this. Und the accidents....they were caused by illness in one case und tiredness in another per the Gazette paragraphs at time.

ist always a wrong message .. the single focus on speed und evertyhing else ist ignored.

[dcb]

Surely if the cameras are there to make us better motorists, how about some more education and training when we make mistakes ?

Emptying our pockets doesn't make us better drivers, surely ?

[grahambell]

Somebody once defined insanity as keeping doing the same thing the same way but expecting different results.

I think this proves just what a bunch of brainless arseholes we have in charge of our traffic policy.

[deeps]

[quote]
The emergency services excepted, the Government do not believe there is ever a time when it is right to break the posted speed limits.
[/quote]

Not quite an opinion truly representative of the people who elected them!

There's a time and a place for everything

[jasandjules]

They forgot to mention that the other exception is when a Govt Minister is

a) on the way home
b) on the way to work

[puggit]

jasandjules said:

They forgot to mention that the other exception is when a Govt Minister is a) on the way home b) on the way to work

Don't forget they can also use the M4 buslane

[safespeed]

The DfT document that triggered this discussion is a strange one. I was so curious to understand why it was created that I sent a Freedom of Information request:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:27:32 +0100
From: Paul Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: [e-mail]

Hi,

Please service the following request made under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

I'm very interested in understanding the decision processes that led to the
publication of the recent DfT web page: "Adhering to the speed limit - helpful
information" published at:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_039813.hcsp

In particular, please answer the following questions:

1) Who decided that the document should be prepared?
2) Please supply all DfT documents concerned with planning the content.
3) Please describe the motivations behind the article - what 'problems' is it
intended to solve?
4) Is the document part of a particular strategy or plan? Please give details,
including future plans.

The address for correspondence is:
Trace House,
Clay of Allan
Fearn near Tain
Ross-shire
Scotland
IV20 1RR

Please acknowledge this Freedom of Information request.

I would prefer to receive your reply in electronic form by email.
==============================================

We've also been discussing the document in the Safe Speed forums:
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3584

[jasandjules]

Simply put, for the Govt to continue to brainwash the braindead into actually believing that rigid adherence to an arbitrary limit is safe driving... To attempt to dispel the growing resentment that this is merely another road tax.

If they have to lie and cheat to do it, what is new.

[medusa]

If you were the government, would you want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

[_VTEC_]

"Keep spouting some spurious idea enough times and people might start to belive it."

The thing that bothers me is, what are the govt. doing about the causes of all the other accidents? (drink driving aside) Some things just don't add up IMO.

[Peter Ward]

_VTEC_ said:

"Keep spouting some spurious idea enough times and people might start to belive it." The thing that bothers me is, what are the govt. doing about the causes of all the other accidents? (drink driving aside) Some things just don't add up IMO.

Like 1 in 7 young drivers admit to driving after taking drugs. As the most likely age-group to die in RTAs you would think this would be important for the Government to investigate further and take some action. Anyone heard anything?

[jasandjules]

I heard that it was too difficult to test for drugs, but quite easy to set up a gatso which has the added bonus of also fortuitously generating income.... Sooo, a tough choice...

[CTE]

The jobsworths of this world need to dream up schemes like the scameras, in order to fund their cushy lifestyles, and the clever bit is they know how hard they can push jo public, before we crack. This madness will continue until they push too far. Anyhow, whilst no one wants road accidents and deaths, there are far too many people on this small island, which is really whats at the root of our quality of life problems. We are going round in ever decreasing circles.

[aston67]

daft idea maybe but... in these times...

what about nice white t-shirt with front and back some nice lines re: speed camera scam?

A67

[james_j]

Typical arrogance / dogma from this government I'm afraid.

...and to think lives, real lives - people - with families - are being killed by this dogma, this obsession with velocity (which generates revenue); it just shows the contempt in which this government holds the people.

[timtonal]

Ahhh but the government trying to get us all out of our cars, but doing nothing whatsoever to entice drivers away from them by providing a decent alternative.

[james_j]

timtonal said:

Ahhh but the government trying to get us all out of our cars, but doing nothing whatsoever to entice drivers away from them by providing a decent alternative.

..are they really trying to get us out of our cars, or just pretending while claiming the moral high ground and raking in £billions a year at the same time.

Without the car driver paying all these taxes, the country would be in real trouble financially.

[timmy30]

Just going to give an example of a local road I know.

For donkeys years the limit was 40, every so often there would be a nasty crash as soon scamp came rocketing over the brow of the hill at 70mph straight into a parked car. Note it was never anyone doing 40 or 45mph. These guys were kamakaze.

So they put in speed cameras........fair enough.....but at the same time they reduce the speed limit to 30mph. Which is IMO below the approriate speed for a wide straight A road.

Now they either did this i) because they thought that people doing 40mph really were also in danger.....OR

ii) they calculated that enforcing the 40mph limit would scam very few drivers as most travel at around 40-45mph on that road anway as most drivers far from being psychopathic morons are actually capable of driving at a speed appropriate for the road. But infact the only was to generate enough revenue to justify the cameras was to deliberately set the speed limit well below that approriate for the road.

In this case the scamera did have an impact of the hooning BUT the profiteering element of it has punished the vast majority of sensible drivers.