Go slow: police win the right to camouflage speed cameras
Discussion
The Times said:
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.”
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2045689,00.html
GAH whatever next!
>> Edited by James_N on Saturday 18th February 19:33
The Times said:
Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, will be able to repaint yellow cameras to make them blend into the background.
Why? To catch us out if we go a few mph over an arbitrary limit?
I can't help but be reminded of the addition to the sign proclaiming that hundreds of motorists have been done for speeding which read "number of burglars caught = nil"
For Gods sake start allocating resources according to what we actually want.
The Times said:
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.
So why is it a problem if there are no crashes? And who has any objection to cameras outside school anyway? Hardly anybody, even on this forum!
The Times said:
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.
So how many have you saved so far?
If the current regulation really do prohibit location outside a school then fine, change them. But please don't try to tell us that lives will be saved by reducing accidents in areas where you've already failed to supply evidence that there are any accidents in the first place!
The Times said:
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.’ ”
So just put one there! No one objects! No one at all! Just put up a wacking great big sign saying "school safety zone - cameras ahead". Sorted.
The Times said:
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.”
Good. The sooner cameras are put in places where there is little question about the safety aspect the better. Clearly signpost them and the deterrent will work.
The Times said:
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.”
What emerging trends? Can you show us any that stand up to statistical scrutiny? Any at all?
The Times said:
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.”
Can't you just imagine the conversation-
"Why have you hidden your cameras?"
"To fleece the beleagured motorist"
"OK, carry on."
The Times said:
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.”
They've already lost a lot of it. They're called "scameras" don't ya know.
The last sentence is bang on the money.
The Times said:
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.”
First statement: Fine, no argument at all. If theres an obvious case for a camera on the grounds of safety and the deterrent is there due to it being clearly marked then fine.
Second statement: Who cares? Haven't you got something more important to do than worry about enforcing something on the gronds of safety when there's no evidence that there's any danger? If you haven't then surely the courts and the police should have judging by the crime we all have to put up with.
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2045689,00.htm
This makes me furious. At a time when an estimated 10% of drivers are uninsured, this treachorous left wing establishment is hell bent on persecuting those tax paying, law abiding, respectful citizens like myself who might creep a few miles per hour over the limit.
Please let this monstrous lot be voted out of office at the first opportunity.
Please let this monstrous lot be voted out of office at the first opportunity.
Saied said:
This makes me furious. At a time when an estimated 10% of drivers are uninsured, this treachorous left wing establishment is hell bent on persecuting those tax paying, law abiding, respectful citizens like myself who might creep a few miles per hour over the limit.
Please let this monstrous lot be voted out of office at the first opportunity.
sadly the kind of lefty-voting social-fund draining workshy council flat dwellers that vote for labia aren't car owners. The other car-owning lefty voters are easily manipulated weak-spined floaters. The rest use the bus. Don't expect this to change the way these people fill their pockets from our taxes.
Something that people seem to miss when they are talking about speed limits:
If you see a thirty limit, it means that somebody decided the limit needed to be somewhere less than 40 mph. So even if you accept the idea that there is some absolute limit that it is never ever safe to exceed, and if you accept that this is the speed that is used to select the speed limit, you know that this speed is always higher than the speed limit. In effect a 30 mph limit means 'we reckon it is not usually safe to go faster than 30-40 mph'. What it does NOT mean is 'it is never safe to go faster than 30 mph', but that seems to be how it is being interpreted. It's a nonesense.
If you see a thirty limit, it means that somebody decided the limit needed to be somewhere less than 40 mph. So even if you accept the idea that there is some absolute limit that it is never ever safe to exceed, and if you accept that this is the speed that is used to select the speed limit, you know that this speed is always higher than the speed limit. In effect a 30 mph limit means 'we reckon it is not usually safe to go faster than 30-40 mph'. What it does NOT mean is 'it is never safe to go faster than 30 mph', but that seems to be how it is being interpreted. It's a nonesense.
CombeMarshal said:
Don't get me wrong I don't like them either, but if you don't want to get caught don't break the limit, if you want to break the speed limit don't moan about cameras, I've never been caught by one, you don't need to look at your speedo to know what speed you doing!
You lucky guy! it must be a hoot being not only perfect but able to gauge speed to such an accuracy.
No, I don't see the problem, I didn't say I potter about, far from it, but I know the risk, there is only one way to garentee to not get had by a camera!
Plus you don't have to be that accurate, there is a 10% tolerance anyway, due to speedo inacuracies.
>> Edited by CombeMarshal on Sunday 19th February 15:43
Plus you don't have to be that accurate, there is a 10% tolerance anyway, due to speedo inacuracies.
>> Edited by CombeMarshal on Sunday 19th February 15:43
I think the general rant is not about being caught but the dishonesty behind their use, check the thread, no one is moaning about being caught but for some reason that is always the perception.
Disguising the things and erecting them in areas where there is a speed problem simply reads as hiding them behind a tree on an open stretch of road where you can get your toe down to me, I think even you will find that a little more of a risk to your licence and wallet.
Disguising the things and erecting them in areas where there is a speed problem simply reads as hiding them behind a tree on an open stretch of road where you can get your toe down to me, I think even you will find that a little more of a risk to your licence and wallet.
apache said:
I think the general rant is not about being caught but the dishonesty behind their use, check the thread, no one is moaning about being caught but for some reason that is always the perception.
Disguising the things and erecting them in areas where there is a speed problem simply reads as hiding them behind a tree on an open stretch of road where you can get your toe down to me, I think even you will find that a little more of a risk to your licence and wallet.
And the waste of money. 50 grand a pop and how many are there?
Have they caught the pond life that threw syringes at MrsCs pram?
The persons who threw a breeze block through next doors car windsceen?
The low life that torched the car across the road?
The man who chased a six year old girl home from my sons school with his willy hanging out?
The two men who tried to force a lad into the back of their truck?
Never mind about that, there's a lovely new camera van parked at the end of the road into my estate. They just caught a criminal mastermind, the local childminder. Real menace that woman earning a living and looking after kids.
Catch a few motorists, that'll show em!
[quote]Have they caught the pond life that threw syringes at MrsCs pram?
The persons who threw a breeze block through next doors car windsceen?
The low life that torched the car across the road?
The man who chased a six year old girl home from my sons school with his willy hanging out?
The two men who tried to force a lad into the back of their truck?
Never mind about that, there's a lovely new camera van parked at the end of the road into my estate. They just caught a criminal mastermind, the local childminder. Real menace that woman earning a living and looking after kids.
Catch a few motorists, that'll show em!
[/quote] They won't pursue the likes of these skidmarks in the pants of Society because they will have to pay for them to go to prison...WE pay THEM for the honour of being rogered. You can't have shareholders in the Prison System, but you can in Scamera Pratnerships...
Another thread reported the four Gatsos torched last week - I feel we will soon be hearing of many, many more.
ATG said:
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.
How so? they still keep the money to invest in 'other' road 'safety' areas
In the light of this step further down a road that only targets the generally law-abiding (i.e. tax paying, registered owner) who have strayed a few mph over the limit, aroad that routinely failes to catch or deter the criminal. I'm faced with only one reasonable course of action.
I too must join the ranks of criminal scum who drive around with forged plates. I must ensure that my vehicles are not registered in my name or address. That they are not traceable to me at all. If I'm going this far I may as well not bother with insurance - I'd save at least 2k a year this way and could put it away to pay the paltry fine I'd have if caught.
So I apologise in advance to anyone who gains an undeserved NIP because I've cloned your plates or stolen your identity. Tought luck, you can pay my fines for me. After all, the chance of getting caught by a real policeman is miniscule!
I too must join the ranks of criminal scum who drive around with forged plates. I must ensure that my vehicles are not registered in my name or address. That they are not traceable to me at all. If I'm going this far I may as well not bother with insurance - I'd save at least 2k a year this way and could put it away to pay the paltry fine I'd have if caught.
So I apologise in advance to anyone who gains an undeserved NIP because I've cloned your plates or stolen your identity. Tought luck, you can pay my fines for me. After all, the chance of getting caught by a real policeman is miniscule!
On top of that, I saw a good example to us motorist set by a police car today, speeding up the A1 where they often have a mobile scamera, no flashing lights to denote it was necessary, A real case of don't do as I do do as I say. Why do they get away with it?
iaint said:
In the light of this step further down a road that only targets the generally law-abiding (i.e. tax paying, registered owner) who have strayed a few mph over the limit, aroad that routinely failes to catch or deter the criminal. I'm faced with only one reasonable course of action.
I too must join the ranks of criminal scum who drive around with forged plates. I must ensure that my vehicles are not registered in my name or address. That they are not traceable to me at all. If I'm going this far I may as well not bother with insurance - I'd save at least 2k a year this way and could put it away to pay the paltry fine I'd have if caught.
So I apologise in advance to anyone who gains an undeserved NIP because I've cloned your plates or stolen your identity. Tought luck, you can pay my fines for me. After all, the chance of getting caught by a real policeman is miniscule!
Speed Matters | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff