Folly of our Speed Cams By Fred Forsyth (Express)
Discussion
Frederick Forsyth gas just joined "Expess" as columnist.
His article (is he a PHer?
)
THE FOLLY OF OUR SPEED CAMERAS
"One gets sick and tired of complacent Chief Constables and greedy authorities bleating that 'speed cameras save lives' In isolation, of course, they do nothing of the sort"
He goes on to say that any fool know - eight reasons contribute to traffic accidents:
He cites jay-walking - offence in USA and parts of EU (and Switzerland). But not an offence here because drivers are insured (supposedly ) and pedestrians are not. Thus it pays the blame the driver as insurance companies get take to cleaners and we all pay higher premiums as result. 
He lists weather, state of light, traffic conditions, state of road, state of car, actual skill of driver (does he use COAST), and speed.
Fred gives example of dual carriageway, dodgy lighting, heavy rain, dense traffic, pedestrians and 30mph speed limit. He states the obvious - 30mph is not the safe speed to proceed PC Gatso does not prosecute the dangerous twazak who drives 29mph and misses the child, other car by a whisker.
The same road, dry conditions, clear road, not one car in sight. Driver pings it at 35 + mph. OK - "against the law because above a speed limit - but hardly endangering a life"
He asks the question - why not devise variable limits on these roads - with nice neon signs telling you of this. Not rocket science given what we already have developed? He suggests equipping all the doo-dahs with sensory equipment for weather, lighting and traffic density - like the ones on the m/ways ....(just paraphrasing what he is saying here...)
Fred suggests that the Gatso is at odds with British law because punishments via speed cam appear random and arbitrary as opposed to specific and justified - because of the way they are being deployed -on safest stretches of road, for nit-picking blips, and with no account being taken of the actual road conditions prevalent at the time of the offence.
He must have been reading this site - cos it seems to be summary of numerous postings
His article (is he a PHer?
) THE FOLLY OF OUR SPEED CAMERAS
"One gets sick and tired of complacent Chief Constables and greedy authorities bleating that 'speed cameras save lives' In isolation, of course, they do nothing of the sort"
He goes on to say that any fool know - eight reasons contribute to traffic accidents:
He cites jay-walking - offence in USA and parts of EU (and Switzerland
). But not an offence here because drivers are insured (supposedly ) and pedestrians are not. Thus it pays the blame the driver as insurance companies get take to cleaners and we all pay higher premiums as result. He lists weather, state of light, traffic conditions, state of road, state of car, actual skill of driver (does he use COAST
), and speed. Fred gives example of dual carriageway, dodgy lighting, heavy rain, dense traffic, pedestrians and 30mph speed limit. He states the obvious - 30mph is not the safe speed to proceed PC Gatso does not prosecute the dangerous twazak who drives 29mph and misses the child, other car by a whisker.
The same road, dry conditions, clear road, not one car in sight. Driver pings it at 35 + mph.
OK - "against the law because above a speed limit - but hardly endangering a life" He asks the question - why not devise variable limits on these roads - with nice neon signs telling you of this. Not rocket science given what we already have developed? He suggests equipping all the doo-dahs with sensory equipment for weather, lighting and traffic density - like the ones on the m/ways ....(just paraphrasing what he is saying here...)
Fred suggests that the Gatso is at odds with British law because punishments via speed cam appear random and arbitrary as opposed to specific and justified - because of the way they are being deployed -on safest stretches of road, for nit-picking blips, and with no account being taken of the actual road conditions prevalent at the time of the offence.
He must have been reading this site - cos
it seems to be summary of numerous postings wildcat said:
He must have been reading this site - cos it seems to be summary of numerous postings
Yes.....but maybe what prompted him is that he had just received his first NIP from the SCPs.
Those pompous but brainless zealots ( I'm thinking of people like your friend Steve here
) have no idea how damaging to their limited career prospects pinging a journo really is, do they. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff