MCI on Speed Cameras
Motorbike industry concerned about speed camera policy
Lending its support to the review of the role of speed cameras, the Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCI) has today called for a more balanced approach to speed enforcement policy on UK roads.
The MCI is concerned about over simplistic claims of Safety Camera Partnerships regarding the cameras' effectiveness in overall safety terms, and points to worsening casualty trends from 1993, the year that the cameras became operational.
Historically, the principles of the '3 Es' have governed road design and traffic management. The MCI believes that the balance here needs redressing. The principles are Engineering, Education and Enforcement; to these, the MCI wants to see a fourth 'E' added: Engagement with riders and drivers on safety topics.
The MCI claim that whilst speed cameras may be effective at reducing vehicle speeds very near to where they are sited, but the premise that they can replace visible, dedicated traffic police has proved to be fatally flawed. Traffic police numbers have fallen by half since the cameras' introduction, yet these same officers deal all too often with the aftermath of road accidents, which regular patrols have historically helped to prevent.
Reductions in traffic policing levels also mean that many potentially lethal motoring offences go undetected. While speeding fines have risen exponentially since 1993, the MCI notes with concern that the number of people convicted for drunk, dangerous or careless driving has plummeted.
Fewer traffic police also means fewer resources for police-led programmes to improve roadcraft skills, such as the unique motorcycle safety initiative 'Bikesafe'.
The MCI fully supports The Government's aim to reduce road casualties, but warns its means of implementation has lost public support; this is partly due to disproportionate fines and penalty points for minor speed infringements. This is also due to a perception of camera placement for revenue-raising, and a perceived inability to justify many of the camera locations on safety grounds.
MCI Director of Public Affairs Craig Carey-Clinch said; 'MCI believes that traffic speed cameras are a valuable, but badly utilised weapon in the road safety arsenal. Increasingly, speed cameras and their operators have become public pariahs. To be beneficial, the camera technology should be targeted to catch dangerously fast speeders in areas where the highest risk exists (such as outside schools at busy times) as part of a wider policy of speed and driving standards management - not simply used to generate revenue for camera operators and the Government. '
Accordingly, the MCI has announced a ten-point plan for an effective speed policy, which if adopted, would restore balance to motoring law enforcement.
1. Remove all fixed and mobile speed cameras, except those at sites where there exists a demonstrable likelihood of casualty risk through excessive speed.
2. Govern the placement of new cameras according to the criterion in [1] above, and then only as a last resort when driver education has failed and road engineering to remove hazards and improve safe traffic flows is impracticable.
3. Where cameras are deemed necessary, allocate funds raised from speeding fines into road safety initiatives that incorporate the '3 Es', plus the fourth 'E' of 'engagement'.
4. Counter the widespread increase in speeding-related insurance premiums with enhanced discount incentives for attendees on skills and survival courses, such as Bikesafe.
5. Conduct a comprehensive review of UK-wide speed limits, with reference to the 85th percentile and the re-standardisation of speed limits on certain types of road.
6. Engineer roads for the most efficient traffic flow with maximum visibility and grip, rather than clutter them up with 'traffic calming' obstacles which often simply create congestion and are often a particular hazard to motorcyclists.
7. Publicly review the role of Safety Camera Partnerships and in particular, review how the huge sums that are raised through camera enforcement are being spent, with special emphasis on the future allocation of funding to road safety projects such as Bikesafe.
8. Restore traffic officers as the primary means of policing UK roads.
9. Make more use of non-punitive 'real-time' speed advisory displays on roads.
10. Make more use of variable speed limits on congested major routes, instead of imposing blanket lower limits.
mrmaggit said:
How can any sane, reasonable person argue with anything in that piece?
Herr Brainstormannfuehrer! After all, it is against his most devout beliefs! Besides - he is hardly "sane and reasonable" - as evidenced by his own voice at his own press conferences!
Our dear Aunty Mary?
Hardly rational from past press cuttings regarding U know what "fantasies"!
After all it contradicts one of their pet beliefs that a s/cam and s/cam alone creates a safer road, and catches the really dangerous and the drunks and those in their defective cars!
Besides which - it is pure common sense!
Not quality which we readily associate with these people!
Whether or not, in whole or in part, is up to them what they do with this information.
But it is their "authority" which is on the line.
Good law with general support is enforcable.
Bad law which alienates the public, will not be.
The majority of drivers in this country would not "shop" somebody trashing a speed camera. Why ?
Because Government Policy with it's proposed top-up speeding penalties to support the Criminal Injuries fund is offensive to the majority of otherwise law abiding citizens who feel themselves being criminalised by the revenue biased application of speed camera technology.A technology which incidentaly, could also very easily take account of traffic volumes, road and weather conditions to enforce a variable speed limit and therefore intelligent (?) law ....
Brute law is being seen as an abuse of power, which it probably is.
For example. As a driver how many times have you been travelling in a line of traffic on a road which could have been limited at 40, 50 or 60mph, seen a speed camera, and not known what speed would be sure to protect your licence ? Do you brake, or go with the flow ?
Why not put the speed limit also on the camera itself ?
When camera vans are located, this seems to be to provide a clear line of vision on uncongested roads --- for what reason ? To catch as many dirivers as possible on the application of a technical speed limit at the point where it is safest to exceed it ?. Do "they" really want us to crawl for the camera ? And how does this balance with the oft used phrase "making progress" ? Is this just an example of inconsistent law which penalises only the unlucky ?
Should we be taking driving licences away solely on the basis of luck ?
I may be wrong, for the moment I have a clean licence and therefore feel my view is relatively uncoloured.I want to see some serious comment from police officers and the authorites on this forum.
Let's have a dialogue. At the moment we have a stand-off.
“Well I'm in government to make decisions (he means do what I want) and I simply put this to you (he means we are simple and we don’t know better) tuff decisions have to be made and we must reduce deaths and injury on our roads (he knows this policy is not working that’s why there is a barrier of tossers surrounding him taking the flak besides do they really care while it’s making money) and as I said we have your safety at heart (he know figures have gone up but does he care…you be the judge)
I just spent the day working near a busy roundabout watching some drivers howling around but the only accident was a old guy run some one up the rear because he was not looking, alas you can target speeders all day long but they are not causing the accidents then how are you going to reduce deaths?
What a wonderful idea - let's make the roads more pratical for bikers so they can go even faster than they do already putting their lives and others at greater risk!!!
>> Edited by jody1923 on Thursday 1st April 19:47
jody1923 said:
6. Engineer roads for the most efficient traffic flow with maximum visibility and grip, rather than clutter them up with 'traffic calming' obstacles which often simply create congestion and are often a particular hazard to motorcyclists.
What a wonderful idea - let's make the roads more pratical for bikers so they can go even faster than they do already putting their lives and others at greater risk!!!
>> Edited by jody1923 on Thursday 1st April 19:47
Dont be such a plonker!
jody1923 said:
6. Engineer roads for the most efficient traffic flow with maximum visibility and grip, rather than clutter them up with 'traffic calming' obstacles which often simply create congestion and are often a particular hazard to motorcyclists.
What a wonderful idea - let's make the roads more pratical for bikers so they can go even faster than they do already putting their lives and others at greater risk!!!
If the road is well engineered (etc) then drivers and riders will be in a position to make an informed decision as to what is the safest and most appropriate way to drive in the circumstances.
If the road is poorly engineered (etc) then the driver/rider will have to divert much of their attention to the much more immediate problem of avoiding obstacles, and they will have to consequently delay and/or make more complicated the wider ranging decision making process about the safest way to travel.
To put it more simply, if you're busy weaving your way around a chicane, then you are spending time watching the obstacle you have to go around - time which you would otherwise be using to keep an eye on the children playing at the side of the road. This is in fact more of an issue for a motorcyclist who has the additional issue of keeping their balance while moving at an enforced low speed around sharp bends.
Your comment - intentionally or otherwise - suggests you accept the government's message of "higher speed = more dangerous"; I suggest you spend a little time investigating various research on the subject, as the majority of that research indicates that the message is incorrect.
>> Edited by jody1923 on Tuesday 6th April 00:31
jody1923 said:
I'm sorry you miss interepted the statement. What i meant to write was 'cars and bikes will go even faster'. I feel these 'obstacles' and speed cameras should be there to save live's and to slow us down. I also agree that some cameras are in the wrong places and need to be looked at. And yes there some places where you could justify going that little bit faster but what for? To save a fraction here and there? I guess this website is just for ignorant w*nkers that like to drive faster than everybody else on the roads just cos they feel that they can!
>> Edited by jody1923 on Tuesday 6th April 00:31
Hence re-inforcing the simple Govmt mantra with no intellectual effort on your prat.
Driving "faster" doesn't make you more dangerous - in fact I think it can be reasonably demonstrated that driving too slowly reduces your concentration and makes you inherently more dangerous.
Open your eyes to the real world hun.
When you fall off your bike, rear end someone or mow over someone because you were too busy negotiating the chicane, run over the cyclist who fell off on the hump, have burglars hammering at your back door, then complain that the cops and ambulance arrived too late to save you and your granny who had the heart atack whilst the burglars were hammering at the door, and when your house burned down because the fire brigade could not get there in time, .........
do not complain - because :
1. You like chicanes.
2. You think speed is unnecessary.
3. You think we are all speed loving w@***rs looking for a cheap thrill!
Suggest you learn to read
Looking for faster Fiesta? -
Dear Mr Pocock
Thank you for your recent mail
Due to the volume of communications we receive it is impossible to reply to
each one in detail, but I would like to reassure you that your comments and
suggestions have been noted and passed on to the appropriate department.
In response to your concerns regarding speed cameras the government
continiues to research the benefits of introducing cameras. It is a fact
that Speed cameras succeed in reducing road deaths, Deaths and serious
injuries fell by 35 per cent on roads where speed cameras have been in
operation. The findings below come from an independent report of a two-year
pilot scheme where eight areas were allowed to re-invest some of the money
from speeding fines into the installation of more cameras and increased
camera use.
The report found that:
Casualties
· There was a 35 per cent reduction in people killed or seriously
injured at camera sites, compared with the long-term trend. This
equates to about 280 people.
· There was a 14 per cent reduction in personal injury accidents at
camera sites, equating to about 510 fewer accidents.
· There was a 56 per cent reduction in the number of pedestrians being
killed or seriously injured at camera sites.
· There were 4 per cent fewer people killed or seriously injured across
the pilot areas. This equates to about 530 fewer people killed or seriously
injured.
Speed
· Average speed at all camera sites fell by 10 per cent or 3.7mph.
· Average speed at urban sites (30/40 mph areas) fell by 12-13 per cent.
· The number of vehicles speeding at camera sites dropped by 67 per
cent.
General
· 80 per cent of people surveyed in the pilot areas agreed that cameras
are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the speed limit, not to punish
them.
· During the pilot the benefit to society through casualties saved is
about £112m.
· The eight partnerships have invested around £20m recovered from fines
to spend on increased camera enforcement on dangerous roads.
Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said:
"This report clearly shows that speed cameras are working. Speeds are down
and so are deaths and injuries. Since the pilot began we have extended this
scheme across the country. This means that more lives can be saved and more
injuries avoided. It is quite clear that speeding is dangerous and causes
too much suffering. I hope this reinforces the message that speed cameras
are there to stop people speeding and make the roads safer. If you don't
speed, you won't get a ticket."
People need to appreciate that speed cameras save lives and they are not
there to trap drivers. We want to see a change in attitude, because when
you tell people that a person only has a 10% chance of surviving if they
are hit at 40mph, they start to listen. Even if we think we are good
drivers, other people on the roads can make mistakes."
The Department for Transport recommends that cameras should be located at
the sites which have the worst record for accidents caused by speeding and
that, before deploying them, safety checks should be made to identify any
other measures which should be carried out first (e.g. improving road
layout, anti-skid surfacing, improved visibility, etc.).
I hope I have addressed your concerns, for more information may I suggest
contacting
The Department for Transport
Tel No 020 7270 5000
or www.dft.gov.uk
I hope I have addressed your concerns, If we can be of any further
assistance please do not hesitate to contact ourselves on 08705 900 200.
Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Andy Reah
Communications Unit
>> Edited by smashmonkey1984 on Tuesday 6th April 16:48
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff