R4 This morning
Discussion
I just heard on Radio 4 (around 6:00) that from May speed cameras will no longer need to be painted yellow, in fact they can be hidden. Not only that but the guidelines on positioning them in accident blackspots will be dropped, they can place them where there's a history of speeding.
So all those guidelines brought in before the last election were just for the election. Ladyman went on television very recently stating that they were painting the cameras orange and signing them so you would have to be stupid to get caught. When he said this he must have known they were going to simply let the guidelines lapse. And they are just guidelines - not the law.
Deceipt?
What's also interesting is in the last hour I haven't heard the story again.
So all those guidelines brought in before the last election were just for the election. Ladyman went on television very recently stating that they were painting the cameras orange and signing them so you would have to be stupid to get caught. When he said this he must have known they were going to simply let the guidelines lapse. And they are just guidelines - not the law.
Deceipt?
What's also interesting is in the last hour I haven't heard the story again.
targarama said:
Maybe that means that we can hide them too ... permanently.
I wish that were the case but we are now being monitored like no other civilisation in history. Half a million cctv cameras in London alone.
The speed at which we are being turned into a police state is accelerating.
Nothing Blair or his party says can be trusted. At all.
cdp said:
Maybe that means that we can hide them too ... permanently.
I wish that were the case but we are now being monitored like no other civilisation in history. Half a million cctv cameras in London alone.
The speed at which we are being turned into a police state is accelerating.
Nothing Blair or his party says can be trusted. At all.
Ah but Tonys gang have given us the training. They've told us about cloning plates so we can get to the camera undetected, then we've learned all about Hoodies from his friends the press - allows us to approach and remove said device undetected. We can probably even apply for some kind of benefit to rent an angle grinder from the local HSS.
I'd never do this of course.
cdp said:
I just heard on Radio 4 (around 6:00) that from May speed cameras will no longer need to be painted yellow, in fact they can be hidden. Not only that but the guidelines on positioning them in accident blackspots will be dropped, they can place them where there's a history of speeding.
So all those guidelines brought in before the last election were just for the election. Ladyman went on television very recently stating that they were painting the cameras orange and signing them so you would have to be stupid to get caught. When he said this he must have known they were going to simply let the guidelines lapse. And they are just guidelines - not the law.
The story is more or less nonsense, actually. Someone is flying a kite I think, but I'm not sure who.
More detail: www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6035
safespeed said:
I just heard on Radio 4 (around 6:00) that from May speed cameras will no longer need to be painted yellow, in fact they can be hidden. Not only that but the guidelines on positioning them in accident blackspots will be dropped, they can place them where there's a history of speeding.
So all those guidelines brought in before the last election were just for the election. Ladyman went on television very recently stating that they were painting the cameras orange and signing them so you would have to be stupid to get caught. When he said this he must have known they were going to simply let the guidelines lapse. And they are just guidelines - not the law.
The story is more or less nonsense, actually. Someone is flying a kite I think, but I'm not sure who.
More detail: www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6035
So it's like the story R4 had on last week when they stated that the errosion in Happisburgh (Norfolk) was caused by global warming. Strangely, they neglected the fact that the goverment has recently _REMOVED_ the sea defences from that part of the coastline and that prior to their errection the coastline was erroding at a fantastic rate.
Since Hutton we can't trust R4 very much either.
targarama said:
Maybe that means that we can hide them too ... permanently.
I wish that were the case but we are now being monitored like no other civilisation in history. Half a million cctv cameras in London alone.
The speed at which we are being turned into a police state is accelerating.
Nothing Blair or his party says can be trusted. At all.
Ah but Tonys gang have given us the training. They've told us about cloning plates so we can get to the camera undetected, then we've learned all about Hoodies from his friends the press - allows us to approach and remove said device undetected. We can probably even apply for some kind of benefit to rent an angle grinder from the local HSS.
I'd never do this of course.
I wouldn't say that. You may get prosecuted for "glorifying terror"....
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2045689,00.html
The Times February 18, 2006
Go slow: police win the right to camouflage speed cameras
By Ben Webster
The prominent yellow boxes may be harder to identify from next year
MOTORISTS face the return of hidden speed cameras after rules governing their siting and visibility cease to be enforced from April 2007.
Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, will be able to repaint yellow cameras to make them blend into the background.
They will also be able to install cameras where there is a speeding problem but little history of crashes.
At present the partnerships are bound by strict rules issued by the Department for Transport. The cameras must be painted bright yellow and be visible from at least 60m (200ft) away. They can be installed only at sites where there have been at least three collisions causing death or serious injury and three causing slight injury within a kilometre in the previous three years.
Many partnerships believe that the rules are too restrictive. Last autumn, Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales Police, said that many more lives would be saved if there were more flexibility in camera location.
He said: “Parents often write to us and ask us to put a camera outside a school because the traffic is so dangerous. It’s very difficult to write back and say, ‘Please let us know when your son is killed and then we can consider putting a camera there.’ ”
Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, said in December that partnerships would no longer be able to keep the cash from camera fines to pay for more cameras. They will get grants from a central road safety fund to pay for cameras or alternative measures such as new markings or humps.
Ian Bell, the camera liaison officer for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said that regional differences were likely. “If a highway authority wants to install more cameras and they have the money there will be nothing to stop them. They may decide to put cameras in places the criteria do not currently allow, such as in villages and around schools.”
Lee Murphy, speed camera manager for Cheshire, said: “If the rules weren’t compulsory we could use cameras to tackle emerging trends rather than waiting for the minimum number of collisions.”
A Department of Transport spokesman said: “Local authorities will have freedom to use cameras where appropriate and where they see fit. But we do not want to see a return to the bad old days of cameras being hidden behind trees. We are minded to use guidance to achieve this, but if authorities flout it we will consider regulation. If they want to paint cameras grey we will want to know why.”
Kevin Delaney, the head of road safety at the RAC Foundation, said: “We are concerned that some partnerships will conceal cameras and risk losing the trust of motorists. It makes sense for cameras to be yellow because it slows people down at accident blackspots.”
Brake, a road safety charity, welcomed the new flexibility for partnerships. Mary Williams, its chief executive, said: “Requiring casualties before action is abhorrent and results in needless deaths. We welcome the opportunity for covert enforcement because too many motorists simply slow down briefly for a yellow camera.”
The Times February 18, 2006
Go slow: police win the right to camouflage speed cameras
By Ben Webster
The prominent yellow boxes may be harder to identify from next year
MOTORISTS face the return of hidden speed cameras after rules governing their siting and visibility cease to be enforced from April 2007.
Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, will be able to repaint yellow cameras to make them blend into the background.
They will also be able to install cameras where there is a speeding problem but little history of crashes.
At present the partnerships are bound by strict rules issued by the Department for Transport. The cameras must be painted bright yellow and be visible from at least 60m (200ft) away. They can be installed only at sites where there have been at least three collisions causing death or serious injury and three causing slight injury within a kilometre in the previous three years.
Many partnerships believe that the rules are too restrictive. Last autumn, Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales Police, said that many more lives would be saved if there were more flexibility in camera location.
He said: “Parents often write to us and ask us to put a camera outside a school because the traffic is so dangerous. It’s very difficult to write back and say, ‘Please let us know when your son is killed and then we can consider putting a camera there.’ ”
Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, said in December that partnerships would no longer be able to keep the cash from camera fines to pay for more cameras. They will get grants from a central road safety fund to pay for cameras or alternative measures such as new markings or humps.
Ian Bell, the camera liaison officer for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said that regional differences were likely. “If a highway authority wants to install more cameras and they have the money there will be nothing to stop them. They may decide to put cameras in places the criteria do not currently allow, such as in villages and around schools.”
Lee Murphy, speed camera manager for Cheshire, said: “If the rules weren’t compulsory we could use cameras to tackle emerging trends rather than waiting for the minimum number of collisions.”
A Department of Transport spokesman said: “Local authorities will have freedom to use cameras where appropriate and where they see fit. But we do not want to see a return to the bad old days of cameras being hidden behind trees. We are minded to use guidance to achieve this, but if authorities flout it we will consider regulation. If they want to paint cameras grey we will want to know why.”
Kevin Delaney, the head of road safety at the RAC Foundation, said: “We are concerned that some partnerships will conceal cameras and risk losing the trust of motorists. It makes sense for cameras to be yellow because it slows people down at accident blackspots.”
Brake, a road safety charity, welcomed the new flexibility for partnerships. Mary Williams, its chief executive, said: “Requiring casualties before action is abhorrent and results in needless deaths. We welcome the opportunity for covert enforcement because too many motorists simply slow down briefly for a yellow camera.”
A Department of Transport spokesman said: “Local authorities will have freedom to use cameras where appropriate and where they see fit. But we do not want to see a return to the bad old days of cameras being hidden behind trees. We are minded to use guidance to achieve this, but if authorities flout it we will consider regulation. If they want to paint cameras grey we will want to know why.”
And then what???
MoJo
And then what???
MoJo
Pah, if they put them where there are not accidents, and they are hidden, what is their objective except to force people to drive slowly?
If the road is safe, and speeding is a problem, then surely that means the speed limit is too low?
If there is a risk, why hide the camera?
GPS is still legal (for now), so the database companies will just be rolling in loads of money as more people subscribe.
Less mobiles then, so thats good all round if you have GPS!
More people getting angry with them, and chopping them down/destroying them.
Ultimately I can't see how this is a bad thing. Infact it's good. Less sympathy from the public, more camera's simply means more to smash up and destroy. More cloned plates, so good to show how the system is fallible, a SERIOUS shortfall of the targets for road safety will continue to not be met.
I just can't see this as a bad thing for the short term. Infact people would do well to get a GPS device and dry up the income stream within weeks by not getting tickets! Could they ban in-car GPS/sat nav with the databases? Don't think they could ultimately...
Hope they put some up near me, will have to go pay them a visit
Yet another reason for me to literally HATE our government. They wonder why terrorists/freedom fighters exist in this world, and they don't have to look further than their own doorstep with their mis-management and discracefull destruction of our society, economy, public services and evil control of the people they are there to serve!
Please Osama, if your out there, liberate us from the cretins we call the british government!
Dave
If the road is safe, and speeding is a problem, then surely that means the speed limit is too low?
If there is a risk, why hide the camera?
GPS is still legal (for now), so the database companies will just be rolling in loads of money as more people subscribe.
Less mobiles then, so thats good all round if you have GPS!
More people getting angry with them, and chopping them down/destroying them.
Ultimately I can't see how this is a bad thing. Infact it's good. Less sympathy from the public, more camera's simply means more to smash up and destroy. More cloned plates, so good to show how the system is fallible, a SERIOUS shortfall of the targets for road safety will continue to not be met.
I just can't see this as a bad thing for the short term. Infact people would do well to get a GPS device and dry up the income stream within weeks by not getting tickets! Could they ban in-car GPS/sat nav with the databases? Don't think they could ultimately...
Hope they put some up near me, will have to go pay them a visit
Yet another reason for me to literally HATE our government. They wonder why terrorists/freedom fighters exist in this world, and they don't have to look further than their own doorstep with their mis-management and discracefull destruction of our society, economy, public services and evil control of the people they are there to serve!
Please Osama, if your out there, liberate us from the cretins we call the british government!
Dave
The "Government" needs to see a huge public backlash against all this bollox! I'm talking speed cameras, climate change, petrol tax all of it. However while the BBC is propoganda machine of our delightful Tony we will never see it. People just suck it up and spout it out as gospel truth.
It will have to go the way of underground resistance (crazy i know) where by there would be total culling of all speed cameras, and wanton vandalism of mobile cameras while they are in situe.
THe other things like climate change also need to be tackled, but that is a discussion for the Pie & Piston.
It will have to go the way of underground resistance (crazy i know) where by there would be total culling of all speed cameras, and wanton vandalism of mobile cameras while they are in situe.
THe other things like climate change also need to be tackled, but that is a discussion for the Pie & Piston.
cdp said:
I just heard on Radio 4 (around 6:00) that from May speed cameras will no longer need to be painted yellow, in fact they can be hidden. Not only that but the guidelines on positioning them in accident blackspots will be dropped, they can place them where there's a history of speeding.
So all those guidelines brought in before the last election were just for the election. Ladyman went on television very recently stating that they were painting the cameras orange and signing them so you would have to be stupid to get caught. When he said this he must have known they were going to simply let the guidelines lapse. And they are just guidelines - not the law.
The story is more or less nonsense, actually. Someone is flying a kite I think, but I'm not sure who.
More detail: www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6035
So it's like the story R4 had on last week when they stated that the errosion in Happisburgh (Norfolk) was caused by global warming. Strangely, they neglected the fact that the goverment has recently _REMOVED_ the sea defences from that part of the coastline and that prior to their errection the coastline was erroding at a fantastic rate.
Since Hutton we can't trust R4 very much either.
BBC = voice of the (Labour) government. Don't forget that after the 1997 elections the bosses told the journalists to go easy on the new ministers because they had been elected with such a majority.
As for global warming, take a look here: www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N7/C1.jsp and at the articles linked from it. Essentially the ice is not melting but getting thicker, and sealevels are not rising as a result of any global warming. But "they" don't want you to know that or you might be reluctant to pay your climate change levies to guarantee the future of the planet.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff