Monday 26th June 2006

New map reveals scamera locations

Includes article on keeping your licence

---

Mesquita with atlas and scamera

Another map-maker is publishing an atlas showing the location of speed cameras, following the AA which made a similar move last year.

Philips reckons it's "helping British motorists avoid being victims of inconsistently operated and administered speed cameras". And it's wheeled out speed camera expert Stephen Mesquita who has contributed 10 Top Tips to avoid speeding penalties to the 2007 atlas.

Mesquita, a writer and publisher who worked for the AA for 17 years, said he has revealed "a shocking legacy of inconsistency in the way that speed cameras are operated across the UK".

Mesquita criticises the authorities for putting in place a system that is inconsistently operated and administered and that makes it too easy for the otherwise law-abiding motorist to break the law. There is so much variation from area to area that it is very unlikely that the motorist will receive even treatment across the UK. He also says that no less than two million people in the year to April 2005 alone - have been the victims of speed cameras.

"The whole thing is a complete mess and is in need of a radical shake-up", said Mesquita. "Speed cameras that save lives are of course a good thing. But what we have now is a system that is hard to understand, inconsistently operated and which turns too many otherwise law-abiding motorists into law-breakers. In turn that alienates the police from the motorist. It’s not a good situation".

Mesquita’s offered the following advice on how to be extra vigilant in the most camera-infested counties:

• The West Midlands wins the doubtful accolade of having the highest number of fixed speed cameras per person of population (one for every 10,600) whilst Northumbria has the lowest, with only one to every 59,200. But that didn’t stop Northumbria raising over £3 per person in fines.
• The amount raised in fixed penalty notices in England varies hugely - between £6.36 per person of population in Bedfordshire to just £0.97 per person in Greater Manchester. By region, Wales raised £3.25 per person of population against £1.20 in London.
• The same exercise for all cameras (fixed and mobile sites) is impossible because of the inconsistent treatment of mobile sites on safety camera websites - but on the data available, Wales again comes off worst and London best. "Unfortunately each area has done its own thing on their web sites", said Mesquita. "They are meant to publicise the locations where mobile cameras are used but there is no common standard - and the Department for Transport website is two years out of date!"
• There is more to confuse the motorist - there is no consistent rule on how fast over the speed limit you can drive before being prosecuted and the police are not obliged to reveal this, even under the Freedom of Information Act.
• And this problem is further compounded in areas where the speed limit changes frequently and for no apparent reason. "This penalises the person driving in an unfamiliar area", said Mesquita.
• There are also major inconsistencies in the way in which fines are raised. "Some areas convert 100 per cent of Notices of Intended Prosecution to Fixed Penalty Notices; others manage less than 50 per cent. In West Yorkshire only 53 per cent of Fixed Penalty Notices are paid whereas many counties achieve over 90 per cent. This either means that motorists in some areas are taking their cases to court in much greater numbers or that the Fixed Penalties are not being sent out or not being collected", he said.
• The Philips atlas article also recommends a change of sex for male drivers - men are four times more likely to receive points on their licence for speeding as women.

[TOOFM]

I got caught on the A45 in Warwickshire by the classic speed limit change from 60mph down to 50mph, without any obvious lower speed limit signs, and all on the same type of dual carriagway, I was surprised when a camera flashed at me doing roughly 57/58mph (ie under what I thought was the posted limit). Got the usual letter threatening even greater costs than the £60 and three points if I were to oppose or question the offence. So I guess like most people with other things to do I simply paid the fine and made a mental note, only to look out for speed cameras while driving and not to bother helping the police anymore.
Did have the minor satisfaction of sending back the piece of patronising literature the camera partnership send to all the nasty crimnals like me who go 5 mph over the limit, with a note saying that most of the statistics they were quoting have been proved as rubbish. Understandably got no reply.

[jasandjules]

Sadly won't help against the mobile ones.

But, it looks like you are another law abiding person who no longer respects the police, my partner used to be so Pro Police it was untrue, now she wouldn't pee on them if they were on fire (thanks to getting attacked, burgled, our house broken into, our car broken into etc.. with zero police action, but spotting, almost weekly, a plod and hairdryer in our area).

Does anyone have a list of details of KSIs per year say from 2001-2005 per county, and the number of speed cameras for the same years by county. Also, the number of speeding convictions/fines per county for the same period?

[havoc]

TOOFM said:

I got caught on the A45 in Warwickshire by the classic speed limit change from 60mph down to 50mph, without any obvious lower speed limit signs, and all on the same type of dual carriagway, I was surprised when a camera flashed at me doing roughly 57/58mph (ie under what I thought was the posted limit).

If you're talking about the stretch by Ryton (the only section I know about with a 50-limit), then it is signposted both ways, and westbound IIRC has it painted on the road as well as the two large round signs.

It's been there for about 5 or 6 years now...there used to be a fairly dangerous cross-roads across the D-Carriageway (so the cameras were actually put in a sensible place) now replaced by a poorly-designed roundabout that forces westbound traffic to slow down to a crawl or cut other road users up. Needless to say the cameras and the lower limit have remained.

[Peter Ward]

havoc said:

TOOFM said:

I got caught on the A45 in Warwickshire by the classic speed limit change from 60mph down to 50mph, without any obvious lower speed limit signs, and all on the same type of dual carriagway, I was surprised when a camera flashed at me doing roughly 57/58mph (ie under what I thought was the posted limit).

If you're talking about the stretch by Ryton (the only section I know about with a 50-limit), then it is signposted both ways, and westbound IIRC has it painted on the road as well as the two large round signs.

It's been there for about 5 or 6 years now...there used to be a fairly dangerous cross-roads across the D-Carriageway (so the cameras were actually put in a sensible place) now replaced by a poorly-designed roundabout that forces westbound traffic to slow down to a crawl or cut other road users up. Needless to say the cameras and the lower limit have remained.

...plus the 5th speed camera down near the Ryton junction remains as well. It's currently nicely hidden behind overhanging foliage.

I'm not sure I would agree that the cameras were originally sensibly placed. They took the opportunity not just to put a camera each way at that junction, but also higher up the hill towards Coventry in locations completely unrelated to the junction. It was the classic case of sticking cameras where they could make money -- just round corners, on downhill stretches, close together, blending in with existing signs, etc, etc.

And yet, as ABD points out, at the boundary into Coventry the limit reverts to 60 just as you're approaching the A45/A46 roundabout.

Not that the A45 further on is immune from dangerously positioned cameras. The one just before the A46 Warwick bypass junction regularly sees heavy braking as it's downhill and also people are concentrating on traffic lining up for the off-slip. :sigh:

[donteatpeople]

What a load of rubish!

"There is more to confuse the motorist - there is no consistent rule on how fast over the speed limit you can drive before being prosecuted"

If you go at or below the posted limit you wont get prosicuted, what is confusing about that.

[flossythepig]

article said:

The Philips atlas article also recommends a change of sex for male drivers - men are four times more likely to receive points on their licence for speeding as women.

Does this include transvestites or transsexuals?

[mk1fan]

donteatpeople said:

What a load of rubish!

"There is more to confuse the motorist - there is no consistent rule on how fast over the speed limit you can drive before being prosecuted"

If you go at or below the posted limit you wont get prosicuted, what is confusing about that.

I think the point is more that you could be travelling at say 5mph over a 30mph limit in one area and NOT be prosecuted. Yet in another area you maybe travelling at 3mph over a 30mph limit and be prosecuted. This is an inconsistency in the law that should be clarified. I am not advocating breaking the law. You are right, if you don't go above the limit you won't be prosecuted.

However, your car speedometer is allowed to be up to 10% (iirc) inaccurate. Logical if you consider the mechanics involved. So you could think you are traveling on or below the speed limit when infact you are not. Without a clarification of the 'limit tolerances' before prosecution there is the opportunity for the scamera partnerships to fleece yet more money from the otherwise law abiding public.

A logical response to that would be to travel 15% below the posted speed limit but this, it can be argued, can be dangerous.

[10 Pence Short]

The table below shows the current ACPO guidlines for prosecution>


Limit Fixed Penalty Summons
20 mph 25 mph 35 mph
30 mph 35 mph 50 mph
40 mph 46 mph 66 mph
50 mph 57 mph 76 mph
60 mph 68 mph 86 mph
70 mph 79 mph 96 mph

[havoc]

10 Pence Short said:

The table below shows the current ACPO guidlines for prosecution>

Limit Fixed Penalty Summons
20 mph 25 mph 35 mph
30 mph 35 mph 50 mph
40 mph 46 mph 66 mph
50 mph 57 mph 76 mph
60 mph 68 mph 86 mph
70 mph 79 mph 96 mph

I'm OK.
I'm OK.
I'm OK.
Whoops.
B'll'cks!
Oh dear...

[stenniso]

I had a look at the AA map when it came out last year, and specifically checked for mobile camera sites that I know of in the Basildon area. They were not shown, so I thought that the map was only partially useful at best. Reading this article, it sounds like they should also include mobile camera sites, they are after-all supposed to be set up on specified stretches of road.

I've recently been toying with the idea of a GPS camera detector, or perhaps handheld nav unit with camera POI downloads, but am not sure of the benefit if mobile sites are not included. It would be nice to be able to concentrate fully on driving again, but if there is still the risk of mobile sites there will still always be that distraction in the back of your mind.

A colleague at work has a GPS camera detector, and it doesn't give any warning of the mobile camera that Essex Police sometime conceal on the A127.

By the way, last time I used www.ViaMichelin.com for route planning in France, it showed locations for fixed speed cameras on the French roads, which could be useful given that French authorities don't allow camera detectors.

[donteatpeople]

I don’t think it is appropriate for there to be a fixed tolerance before prosecution. I would expect the limit before prosecution to vary according to the severity of the hazards (I do accept this is probably not the case as it would require logic).

If there were to be a fixed tolerance I do not think it would be appropriate to publicise it. The majority of the population would then drive to the prosecution limit instead of the posted limit, which in some cases could be quite dangerous.

[unobtainum]

donteatpeople said:

What a load of rubish!

"There is more to confuse the motorist - there is no consistent rule on how fast over the speed limit you can drive before being prosecuted"

If you go at or below the posted limit you wont get prosicuted, what is confusing about that.

You are being simplistic, what you say is not always as easy as you say, and the authorities making it harder, on purpose, dosnt help. As does not your comment. If it was as easy as you say most would not have a problem with it.

PS I have no points and own a 160mph car and bike. I still hate the cameras.

[donteatpeople]

unobtainum said:

donteatpeople said:

What a load of rubish!

"There is more to confuse the motorist - there is no consistent rule on how fast over the speed limit you can drive before being prosecuted"

If you go at or below the posted limit you wont get prosicuted, what is confusing about that.

You are being simplistic, what you say is not always as easy as you say, and the authorities making it harder, on purpose, dosnt help. As does not your comment. If it was as easy as you say most would not have a problem with it. .

Why is it not that simple?

unobtainum said:

I still hate the cameras.

Cameras are a useful tool for road safety, just widely misused.

[bluepolarbear]

[quote=mk1fanHowever, your car speedometer is allowed to be up to 10% (iirc) inaccurate. Logical if you consider the mechanics involved. So you could think you are traveling on or below the speed limit when infact you are not. [/quote]

Speedo's are built with an inaccurancy to ensure they over read. IE you will always be travelling slower than the speedo shows - typically by around 5%. The speedo can have an error of +10% and -0%

[mk1fan]

donteatpeople said:

I don’t think it is appropriate for there to be a fixed tolerance before prosecution. I would expect the limit before prosecution to vary according to the severity of the hazards (I do accept this is probably not the case as it would require logic).

If there were to be a fixed tolerance I do not think it would be appropriate to publicise it. The majority of the population would then drive to the prosecution limit instead of the posted limit, which in some cases could be quite dangerous.

I was not suggesting that the tolerences be published only that they should be fixed and consistent through out the Nation. About 6 years ago the Cleveland Police sent out a large number (hundreds) of NIP's to people who had been clocked doing 31 or 32 mph in a 30 limit. Now, technically, they had broken the law (assuming that the instruments used to calculate their speed were accurate) but the speedometer in their car may have been reading just below 30mph and still be legally accurate. However, Surrey Police used to tollerate 10% + 2mph (so 35 in a 30).

This is the contradiction.

Unfortunately as cars have become more insulated and comfortable to drive (generally) our sensation of moving has become dulled. Drive a mk1 golf at 40mph and then drive a mk5 golf at the same speed and you'll see what I mean. Couple this with the ridiculous Road Safety campaign that has been solely based on the phrase 'Speed Kills' for nigh on 10 years and you have people driving around looking at their speedo all the time and not the road. Hence the increase in low speed accidents.

[mk1fan]

bluepolarbear said:

[quote=mk1fanHowever, your car speedometer is allowed to be up to 10% (iirc) inaccurate. Logical if you consider the mechanics involved. So you could think you are traveling on or below the speed limit when infact you are not.

Speedo's are built with an inaccurancy to ensure they over read. IE you will always be travelling slower than the speedo shows - typically by around 5%. The speedo can have an error of +10% and -0%[/quote]

So you could be traveling at an indicated speed of 70 but actually traveling at between 59.5 and 73.5mph.

[Peter Ward]

mk1fan said:

...Unfortunately as cars have become more insulated and comfortable to drive (generally) our sensation of moving has become dulled. Drive a mk1 golf at 40mph and then drive a mk5 golf at the same speed and you'll see what I mean. Couple this with the ridiculous Road Safety campaign that has been solely based on the phrase 'Speed Kills' for nigh on 10 years and you have people driving around looking at their speedo all the time and not the road. Hence the increase in low speed accidents.

....therefore the impacts are less damaging, there are fewer KSIs, and the government gets its statistics.

Note that the government doesn't want to reduce the number of accidents, just the number of KSIs. And if car manufacturers happen to contribute safer cars (Golf mk1 vs mk5 comparison again?), the government will claim that this too is down to its policies.

We're in the wrong business. Only in politics can you claim all the glory while avoiding all the blame.

[mk1fan]

Peter Ward said:

We're in the wrong business. Only in politics can you claim all the glory while avoiding all the blame.

[kudosdude]

bluepolarbear: I would be very surprised if car manufacturers did allow a -10% +0% inaccuracy level on speedometers, do you have any proof of this? I am by no means saying that car speedometers are accurate, but I would be surprised if what you say is correct.

[smeggy]

mk1fan said:

bluepolarbear said:

Speedo's are built with an inaccurancy to ensure they over read. IE you will always be travelling slower than the speedo shows - typically by around 5%. The speedo can have an error of +10% and -0%

So you could be traveling at an indicated speed of 70 but actually traveling at between 59.5 and 73.5mph.

How did you come to those numbers?


kudosdude: scroll down to section 19 here:

www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19963013_en_7.htm