Radio 4 on speed cameras
Discussion
Coming to your radio - sounds unmissable to me. Maybe at last the truth will out.
20:00
The Investigation
19 April 2007
Simon Cox investigates the truth about speed cameras and transport policy. Before speed cameras were introduced the number of road deaths was falling dramatically, but this is no longer the case.
Why has this big downward trend stopped? In 2005 there were over 2 million successful speeding prosecutions. Is punishing so many drivers really making our roads safer or are speed cameras causing as many problems as they solve?
The problem is that they've created a compliance culture, no matter how badly you drive, you're a safe driver if you driving at exactly ( or below ) the speed limit, people aren't bothering to signal, check their mirrors, allow other drivers to pass etc. Suprise suprise the reault is more accidents and more people being runover. But who cares as it's a great revenue rasier.
No wonder the UK comes bottom of European countries in a suvery of the level of trust citizens had in their Government and Authorities. We know they're lying, they know they're lying, the BiBs know it bullcrap, but no on ecan do a thing. Isn't democracy great.
No wonder the UK comes bottom of European countries in a suvery of the level of trust citizens had in their Government and Authorities. We know they're lying, they know they're lying, the BiBs know it bullcrap, but no on ecan do a thing. Isn't democracy great.
At least it is on a station where you might expect the "I'm doing 40mph in the NSL so I must be safe" section of society might hear it.....
We all know it is bu***it, it takes a real moron to think that sticking to a speed makes you a safer driver than one who has his eyes open for hazards....BUT at the end of the day it is easy to prove (even when your equipment lies!) and so easy to get convictions, and what do convictions make? Tax money...
We all know it is bu***it, it takes a real moron to think that sticking to a speed makes you a safer driver than one who has his eyes open for hazards....BUT at the end of the day it is easy to prove (even when your equipment lies!) and so easy to get convictions, and what do convictions make? Tax money...
From the BBC news website. Obviously a trailer in the form of a news item. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6568813
Camera-caught drivers not fined
Hundreds of thousands of drivers caught on camera speeding and going through red lights are not being prosecuted, a BBC investigation has learned.
The figures, for England and Wales, suggest London is particularly bad, with more than half of cases failing.
The BBC Radio 4 probe found cameras in the capital catch about 500,000 people a year, but a third of those cannot be traced to an address.
The Metropolitan Police said tracking down drivers was a national problem.
The Investigation programme found it was difficult to produce national figures partly because there were differences in the way some areas collect their data.
But according to figures supplied by Safety Camera Partnerships to the government, hundreds of thousands are getting away with breaking the law.
Detection
Of the 500,000 people caught on camera in London each year one third cannot be traced - either because they are foreign vehicles, or they are not registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
There can also be other problems such as technical faults with cameras and emergency vehicles.
About 350,000 people who have been caught are sent a "Notice of Intent to Prosecute" but only 48% end up getting points on their licences and a fine.
Other parts of the country had also had significant problems, and the programme said it had uncovered evidence drivers were registering cars at addresses other than their own to evade capture.
The Association of Chief Police Officers traffic spokesman, Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes, said detection rates for all crimes was 30% and that in that context speed camera offences were being reasonably enforced.
Kevin Delaney, former head of the Met's traffic police, said the figures were evidence of a wider problem that speed cameras can only catch people who are basically law-abiding.
"Any form of remote detection such as speed cameras relies on the information supplied by the public.
"If that is not correct then remote detection immediately falls flat. You need traffic police to catch the problem drivers."
# BBC Radio 4's The Investigation will be aired at 2000 GMT on Thursday 19 April
So this proves what we already believed -- falsely registered and unregistered drivers are getting away with it while law-abiding drivers aren't. And the chances of being caught if you're not registered?
BBC said:
Camera-caught drivers not fined
Hundreds of thousands of drivers caught on camera speeding and going through red lights are not being prosecuted, a BBC investigation has learned.
The figures, for England and Wales, suggest London is particularly bad, with more than half of cases failing.
The BBC Radio 4 probe found cameras in the capital catch about 500,000 people a year, but a third of those cannot be traced to an address.
The Metropolitan Police said tracking down drivers was a national problem.
The Investigation programme found it was difficult to produce national figures partly because there were differences in the way some areas collect their data.
But according to figures supplied by Safety Camera Partnerships to the government, hundreds of thousands are getting away with breaking the law.
Detection
Of the 500,000 people caught on camera in London each year one third cannot be traced - either because they are foreign vehicles, or they are not registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
There can also be other problems such as technical faults with cameras and emergency vehicles.
About 350,000 people who have been caught are sent a "Notice of Intent to Prosecute" but only 48% end up getting points on their licences and a fine.
Other parts of the country had also had significant problems, and the programme said it had uncovered evidence drivers were registering cars at addresses other than their own to evade capture.
The Association of Chief Police Officers traffic spokesman, Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes, said detection rates for all crimes was 30% and that in that context speed camera offences were being reasonably enforced.
Kevin Delaney, former head of the Met's traffic police, said the figures were evidence of a wider problem that speed cameras can only catch people who are basically law-abiding.
"Any form of remote detection such as speed cameras relies on the information supplied by the public.
"If that is not correct then remote detection immediately falls flat. You need traffic police to catch the problem drivers."
# BBC Radio 4's The Investigation will be aired at 2000 GMT on Thursday 19 April
So this proves what we already believed -- falsely registered and unregistered drivers are getting away with it while law-abiding drivers aren't. And the chances of being caught if you're not registered?
Interestingly on BBC Breakfast they interviewed Kevin Delaney, who is now IAM of course, but in his MET plod days was responsible for the installation of the first GATSO on Twickenham Bridge.
He said this morning that had he any idea of how things would develop, and that these things would in part lead to a large reduction in traffic plod, he would have thought much longer and harder about whether it was the right thing to do. He also said that the original intention was to install cameras where there was a significant safety problem due to excessive and inappropriate speed, and the location was one such that dealing with it by traffic police was impossible due to the road layout or the sheer resource issue.
Please note, I'm paraphrasing what he said but I believe that the above paragraph truly and honestly reflects the meaning of what Kevin had to say. If I've missed something out or got something wrong then I apologise, absolutely no intention to mislead.
He said this morning that had he any idea of how things would develop, and that these things would in part lead to a large reduction in traffic plod, he would have thought much longer and harder about whether it was the right thing to do. He also said that the original intention was to install cameras where there was a significant safety problem due to excessive and inappropriate speed, and the location was one such that dealing with it by traffic police was impossible due to the road layout or the sheer resource issue.
Please note, I'm paraphrasing what he said but I believe that the above paragraph truly and honestly reflects the meaning of what Kevin had to say. If I've missed something out or got something wrong then I apologise, absolutely no intention to mislead.
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 19th April 09:14
Flat in Fifth said:
Please note, I'm paraphrasing what he said but I believe that the above paragraph truly and honestly reflects the meaning of what Kevin had to say. If I've missed something out or got something wrong then I apologise, absolutely no intention to mislead.
I'll stick my neck out and back you up - that is pretty damn near to what he said, and conveys the message reported accurately, IMHO.
Peter Ward said:
....falsely registered and unregistered drivers are getting away with it while law-abiding drivers aren't. And the chances of being caught if you're not registered?
If we all gave false info to the DVLA the system would fall to pieces. I've never been contacted by them to make sure I'm at the address I've put down (which has always been correct I hasten to add). If you can keep your head below the radar then you're halfway there - same with TV licensing.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff