RE: Speed camera march stemmed
Monday 12th December 2005
Will we see fewer of them?This week, an announcement that speed camera numbers are to level off will be made, following a change in how they're funded, according to a story in the Sunday Times.
Speed camera march stemmed
Cash from fines redirected
Will we see fewer of them?
Following the story on PistonHeads last month (see link below), the Government will announce this week that the link between funding and revenue from speed cameras is to be broken. Instead of going to the speed camera partnerships which decide whether and where to erect the devices, the money from speeding fines will go directly to the Treasury -- this year it amounted to £22 million.
The Government will also urge the camera partnerships to consider alternatives such as improved road design and signage, with scameras as a last rather than a first resort, helping to stem their remorseless spread.
The impetus behind this is the internal publication by the Department of Transport of a review of speed camera performance, the conclusions of which may also be published this week.
'Thalidomide of road safety'
In response, Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Road safety progress cannot be restored until DfT bites the bullet and scraps all speed cameras. They distract drivers, give false safety priorities and damage the police-public relationship. The side effects are so wide ranging and so deadly that they will go down in history as the Thalidomide of road safety. Without speed cameras road safety progress would have continued and road deaths would be down to around 2,000 per year by now."
"Road safety has its foundations in psychology because crashes take place when road users make mistakes. Speed cameras increase pressure and make mistakes more likely. "The only safe speed is one that enables a driver to stop in good time if a hazard develops ahead. The dream that increased speed limit compliance will improve safety is just that -- a dream without foundation.
"Government claims of increased safety at speed camera sites are based on useless, flawed and misleading studies."
Links
Image courtesy www.speedcam.co.uk
Discussion
“There is no doubt that safety cameras save lives,” said a 
government source
i think that source picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue 
that "source"
probably wrote 
the press announcement 
to justify the £ 22M in destroying the police <-> public relationship...
>> Edited by Steve-B on Monday 12th December 11:24
government source i think that source picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue that "source"
probably wrote the press announcement to justify the £ 22M in destroying the police <-> public relationship... >> Edited by Steve-B on Monday 12th December 11:24
Whilst it's encouraging to see the beginning of the end for badly placed speed cameras, I'm worried that we are still shooting ourselves in the foot by asking for a complete ban on them. After all, I haven't really got a problem with school run mum in her BMW X5 getting done for doing 40mph past a school at leaving time and I'm surely there are a lot of people that feel the same. Whilst it would be preferable to have a policeman standing outside every school, this is unrealistic.
By asking for a complete ban on speed cameras, are we not at risk of portraying ourselves as an unreasonable minority? Surely if we focused on the bad placement of speed cameras (fast A roads, motorways...), the more preferable alternatives (road engineering, education...), the corresponding reduction in trafpol, etc. this would appeal to a wider audience?
I'm glad for the valiant work of SafeSpeed and the ABD but I do sometimes think that the counter arguement is a bit extreme. Maybe this approach is required to get news coverage?
Just my 2p.
Ian A.
By asking for a complete ban on speed cameras, are we not at risk of portraying ourselves as an unreasonable minority? Surely if we focused on the bad placement of speed cameras (fast A roads, motorways...), the more preferable alternatives (road engineering, education...), the corresponding reduction in trafpol, etc. this would appeal to a wider audience?
I'm glad for the valiant work of SafeSpeed and the ABD but I do sometimes think that the counter arguement is a bit extreme. Maybe this approach is required to get news coverage?
Just my 2p.
Ian A.
A good point from APAddis. I still believe there is a case for speed cameras in road works (at least turned on when there are actually operatives working on the road) and for certain areas which have proven dangerous. A low speed limit at bringing in, and chucking out times at schools which MUST be adhered to, (though not necessarily enforced with cameras which may take a drivers attention from kids running into the road) might also be a good idea in helping to save lives. In the right places cameras may be an addition to safety. In the way they are being used at present the opposite is true.
IPAddis said:
Whilst it would be preferable to have a policeman standing outside every school, this is unrealistic.
You don't have to have a policeman outside every school, every day. A lot of crime prevention is due to the "you never know" theory. You never know if a policeman is going to be outside the school on a particular day, so you drive safe just in case. Likewise you never know if the customs officers are going to open your suitcase when you get through arrivals, so you play safe and don't fill your case with contraband. I think most people realise we can't have 100% surveilance.
Unfortunately these days most people do know that there won't be a policeman outside the local school, or anywhere else for that matter. I also remember in the old days that lolly-pop ladies had a black strip on their lolly-pops, that allowed them to chalk the number plate of vehicles that failed to stop.
I suppose the extra money going direct to the treasury will help Brown pay "our bit" towards the improved road system in Hungary. The rest of it will just have to come from more taxation of the middle-classes in general, and motorist in particular.
As a bit of a Euro-sceptic, I find the whole concept of British tax-payers funding improved transportation in Eastern Europe, while our own transport system grinds to a halt, just a bit perplexing. Can we get the rest of the EU to fund transport improvements for us?
As a bit of a Euro-sceptic, I find the whole concept of British tax-payers funding improved transportation in Eastern Europe, while our own transport system grinds to a halt, just a bit perplexing. Can we get the rest of the EU to fund transport improvements for us?
purpleheadedcerb said:
Paul, hopefully constructive criticism here. It's a bit strong to compare safety camera policy with Thillodomide (or however its spelt) surely? It just seems like an odd comparison that draws your eye away from the rest of your message.
Scott
You may be right, and you're not the only one to raise the issue. It's necessary to be somewhat controversial and it's something of a tightrope walk between weak statements and over-strong statements.
The thalidomide analogy is a good one because unexpected side effects of thalidomide did great damage, just as unexpected side effects of speed cameras are doing great damage. But I accept that it's not in the best possible taste and I probably won't use it again.
IPAddis said:
Whilst it's encouraging to see the beginning of the end for badly placed speed cameras, I'm worried that we are still shooting ourselves in the foot by asking for a complete ban on them. After all, I haven't really got a problem with school run mum in her BMW X5 getting done for doing 40mph past a school at leaving time and I'm surely there are a lot of people that feel the same. Whilst it would be preferable to have a policeman standing outside every school, this is unrealistic.
Have you seen this: htp://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html ?
IPAddis said:
By asking for a complete ban on speed cameras, are we not at risk of portraying ourselves as an unreasonable minority? Surely if we focused on the bad placement of speed cameras (fast A roads, motorways...), the more preferable alternatives (road engineering, education...), the corresponding reduction in trafpol, etc. this would appeal to a wider audience?
I'm glad for the valiant work of SafeSpeed and the ABD but I do sometimes think that the counter arguement is a bit extreme. Maybe this approach is required to get news coverage?
I do believe we MUST achieve a complete ban. I also believe that speed cameras could have been used carefully in the interests of road safety. The problem is that there's so much 'speed kills' mindset out there, that the only thing that will start to undo the damage caused by tens of millions of pounds worth of false publicity will be by a humiliating defeat. We must restore confidence in official road safety messages. We must prevent further damage to the Police public relationship and we MUST refocus people on real safety targets.
peter pan said:
A good point from APAddis. I still believe there is a case for speed cameras in road works (at least turned on when there are actually operatives working on the road) and for certain areas which have proven dangerous.
Seen this: www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html ?
safespeed said:
A good point from APAddis. I still believe there is a case for speed cameras in road works (at least turned on when there are actually operatives working on the road) and for certain areas which have proven dangerous.
Seen this: www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html ?
Aye, and I can tell you WHY 40mph SPECS roadworks are more dangerous, too. Everyone is hell-bent on driving through at 39.99 mph, and they are not watching the space in front, the space behind, and the space either side.
Futhermore the traffic is all moving at exactly the same speed ,and so you tend to find rows of cars forming across the lanes, leaving no escape routes for the car in the middle.
If you drive on the inside lane and leave a sensible braking distance in front, you will find that the truck behind decides you are driving too slowly - but of course you can't just increase your speed slightly to create space in this situation. OTOH if you drive in the other two lanes you will be fenced in, again because you can't adjust speed to leave yourself space and escape routes. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Interesting I don't remember this happening when the limit was 50 - maybe because that's just fast enough that people feel the need to leave some space?
zevans said:
Seen this: www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html ?
Aye, and I can tell you WHY 40mph SPECS roadworks are more dangerous, too. Everyone is hell-bent on driving through at 39.99 mph, and they are not watching the space in front, the space behind, and the space either side.
Futhermore the traffic is all moving at exactly the same speed ,and so you tend to find rows of cars forming across the lanes, leaving no escape routes for the car in the middle.
Oh yes.
But recently I was a speaker at a road safety conference and Robert Gifford of PACTS was also there. He described to the audience how perfectly marvellous it was that the jaguar XJS next to him for 4 miles was prevented from speeding...
safespeed said:
Robert Gifford of PACTS was also there. He described to the audience how perfectly marvellous it was that the jaguar XJS next to him for 4 miles was prevented from speeding...
Damn shame he didn't (nearly) get side swiped, maybe that would have been enough to pound the danger through his thick skull.
zevans said:
Aye, and I can tell you WHY 40mph SPECS roadworks are more dangerous, too. Everyone is hell-bent on driving through at 39.99 mph, and they are not watching the space in front, the space behind, and the space either side.
Futhermore the traffic is all moving at exactly the same speed ,and so you tend to find rows of cars forming across the lanes, leaving no escape routes for the car in the middle.
If you drive on the inside lane and leave a sensible braking distance in front, you will find that the truck behind decides you are driving too slowly - but of course you can't just increase your speed slightly to create space in this situation. OTOH if you drive in the other two lanes you will be fenced in, again because you can't adjust speed to leave yourself space and escape routes. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Interesting I don't remember this happening when the limit was 50 - maybe because that's just fast enough that people feel the need to leave some space?
I think you might be right. On a straight road like a motorway, 40 feels like standing still. Narrow lanes? I know some autobahns that would be proud to have lanes as wide as our "narrow lanes". Similarly in contraflows -- we manage 60 ok on an A-road so what's so special about a contraflow motorway when it even has markers down the middle? It's just too slow so you switch off. Keep a fixed distance from the car in front and then you can change the CD/chat on the phone/pick your nose/read the map/check your diary/file your nails/brake needlessly for cameras -- anything to pass the time.
Traveling along a 70mph dual carraigeway that had a 40mph limit imposed for roadworks, I came alongside 3 cars joining from a slip road. They were closely bunched and doing exactly 40mph. I continued parallel with the lead car until just before the area where the cones reduced the carraigeway to one lane.
The cars were too closely bunched for me to slow a little and safely slot in between the lead and second cars. My normal reaction would be to accelerate above the speed limit for a short period to get me safely in front of the lead car, but due to the risk of getting caught by a speed camera that choice was taken away. I therefore had to brake significantly to allow all three cars in the slow lane to pass, before I could slot in behind. The safest option was basically taken away due to speed camera policy.
In this situation, I feel that I was the best judge of the safest course of action, but some faceless idiot sitting in an office somewhere made a decision on road safety, which is a blanket enforcement of a limit, policed by an unintelligent camera.
The cars were too closely bunched for me to slow a little and safely slot in between the lead and second cars. My normal reaction would be to accelerate above the speed limit for a short period to get me safely in front of the lead car, but due to the risk of getting caught by a speed camera that choice was taken away. I therefore had to brake significantly to allow all three cars in the slow lane to pass, before I could slot in behind. The safest option was basically taken away due to speed camera policy.
In this situation, I feel that I was the best judge of the safest course of action, but some faceless idiot sitting in an office somewhere made a decision on road safety, which is a blanket enforcement of a limit, policed by an unintelligent camera.
zevans said:
Everyone is hell-bent on driving through at 39.99 mph, and they are not watching the space in front, the space behind, and the space either side.
All, that is the crux of the apostrophe -- the cameras cause folks to NOT pay attention to the road, but to their speedo. So how does one get an EU grant to study this so that the compelling safety decline can be accurately measured in rear-end, and side-swipe wrecks can be measured? This is the real problem -- driving WITHOUT undue care because of these ****ing things.
I think it is pathologically wrong to ban all cameras, but they should be places where the greater good exists, like schools, and heavily built up areas ONLY. Sorry if that seems a wee bit contoversial -- but we need to get back to a "state" where the Police aren't quitting their jobs to be sparkies, plumbers and the like.
I know a few BiB's and they spend more time now filling in paperwork than being on patrol. Asked whether they would ticket marginal speeders, they say a uninamous NO -- unless the driver is an 4rse. They would prefer education, and a short roadside discussion to more work that takes them away from their jobs. And they agree with my point on cameras!
IPAddis said:
Whilst it's encouraging to see the beginning of the end for badly placed speed cameras, I'm worried that we are still shooting ourselves in the foot by asking for a complete ban on them. After all, I haven't really got a problem with school run mum in her BMW X5 getting done for doing 40mph past a school at leaving time and I'm surely there are a lot of people that feel the same. Whilst it would be preferable to have a policeman standing outside every school, this is unrealistic.
I used to think the same, now I can think of a reason not to have any cameras anywhere. How many kids are killed outside a school by a speeding car? not many I should think, besides, would you want to be looking for the camera and then checking your speedo when the real danger could run out between parked cars?
Just another thought, where are the Partnerships going to get their funding now? Much as I relish the thought of all these imbeciles being forcrd to admit there actually are other methods to improve safety (boy, they're gonna have to do some real work now) I do worry about the alternatives.........talivans everywhere?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff