Views on 'ITV's Tonight Speed Camera Focus'
Discussion
It would appear that speed camera revolt is quite widespread. The programme hosted by Trevor MacDonald seemed to me that there was virtullay no support for speed camera and that they are the revenue generating tool that we have long suspsected. I was pleased that a fromer Traffic Policeman appeared to have the same reservations as many other reasonable motorists. I was also quite tickled that Captain Gatso had, I my view, real credibiltiy. Of course he and his supporters are breaking the law, something which I cannot condone, but I have to agree that I do support the use of speed cameras at known accident blackspots and built up areas. Speed cameras are able to fulfill the dual role of speed enforcement as well as reducing noise pollution. Don't get me wrong; I love the sound of a well tuned engine, but outside a school or the high street is just not the place. Cameras so postioned would also help to prevent excessive and inappropriate speed from young lads at night. (Yes I was a young lad not so many years ago, but I do resent the unwanted noise of laddied cares with there coarse and badly tuned engines bouncing off the rev limiter)
I'm not against speed cameras- but why does our nanny government abuse this technology to prevent talented, able, observent and considerate drivers from driving within their capabilities and at appropriate speeds however high they may be if conditions allow? If discrediting speed cameras is necessary to return to common sense policing, and police with discressionary powers, then outta my way, I first in line!
I'm not against speed cameras- but why does our nanny government abuse this technology to prevent talented, able, observent and considerate drivers from driving within their capabilities and at appropriate speeds however high they may be if conditions allow? If discrediting speed cameras is necessary to return to common sense policing, and police with discressionary powers, then outta my way, I first in line!
Schools and built up areas are ok locations for speed cameras as a deterent to local people who know the cameras are there. However, all this crap about 'yes cameras are ok at accident blackspots' is complete nonsense. There are far better ways to prevent accidents at black spots. Cameras do not make us slow down, they are not a preventative measure, they are merely a tool to aid conviction.
>> Edited by jam1et on Monday 26th January 23:28
>> Edited by jam1et on Monday 26th January 23:28
All in all, I thought it was a fairly balanced, well-researched, non-hysterical piece of reporting.
It should have left no one in any doubt that speed cameras, however well-intentioned initially, have susequently had their role subverted by the introduction of the Camera Partnerships, which need the revenue the cameras raise in order to justify their (the Partnerships') existence.
The 'budget sheets' produced by the disillusioned policeman, showing targets and revenue expectations, demonstrated once and for all that it is the 'business case' for cameras which is important - not a mention of safety, but then what did we expect...
BTW, if he wants to retain any credibility, Brunstrom should take action to ensure that the press conference footage of him persecuting Mr Shaw is never shown on TV again. But maybe he's so up himself he doesn't realise how damaging it is... Let's hope so!
Oh, and the talivan operator they interviewed, "Brian Henderson", was the bloke who had signed the Lti20/20 Witness Statement that I received as 'evidence' during the case mentioned in my first-ever post (the case was eventually withdrawn - through lack of admissible evidence...).
Still, I can at least now put a face to the name (and for the avoidance of any doubt, this is not any sort of threat - just an observation!).
It should have left no one in any doubt that speed cameras, however well-intentioned initially, have susequently had their role subverted by the introduction of the Camera Partnerships, which need the revenue the cameras raise in order to justify their (the Partnerships') existence.
The 'budget sheets' produced by the disillusioned policeman, showing targets and revenue expectations, demonstrated once and for all that it is the 'business case' for cameras which is important - not a mention of safety, but then what did we expect...
BTW, if he wants to retain any credibility, Brunstrom should take action to ensure that the press conference footage of him persecuting Mr Shaw is never shown on TV again. But maybe he's so up himself he doesn't realise how damaging it is... Let's hope so!
Oh, and the talivan operator they interviewed, "Brian Henderson", was the bloke who had signed the Lti20/20 Witness Statement that I received as 'evidence' during the case mentioned in my first-ever post (the case was eventually withdrawn - through lack of admissible evidence...).
Still, I can at least now put a face to the name (and for the avoidance of any doubt, this is not any sort of threat - just an observation!).
Granada are well known for producing programmes heavily loaded towards sensationalism and this IMHO is yet another one of those that was concocted in haste to jump on the bandwagon on current debate.
OK my stance, like the rest of Joe Public, is that there is a place for Speed Cameras where there is proven need i.e. Accident Black Spots but only as a last resort where traffic engineering cannot resolve. This was their original concept.Safety Partnerships are going beyond this and therefore give weight to the argument that they are revenue collectors and an attempt to police by electronics. Read last week that there are to be another 128 erected in London this year. 128 ABS's suddenly appeared?
Now the programme. The guy doing 38 in a 30. You do not get jailed for not paying the Conditional Offer, which Granada claimed. It then goes, if not paid, to a Magistrates Court where it would appear he put two fingers up at the judiciary so for that contempt in my book he got what he deserved. As to the offence they did not take you back to the start of the BUA where I feel sure there will be 30 signs but TV played on the fact and only showed the area where only lamps were present to indicate the limit. Further they did not make any thrust as to the area not being an ABS and therefore the camera revenue collecting.
Mr Shaw - did I hear right that the reason why he was speeding was to overtake a tractor. The video shown by Blunderbus showed Shaw's vehicle no where near a tractor which came along much later. However I do agree that Blunderbus was totally out of order saying it was dangerous - rubbish. Quiet right to have been censured by his Committee. Nought out of ten there Richard.
The EX PC. Now he looked too young to have done his 25 or 27 1/2 and definately not 30 years to qualify for a pension. To me wage wise Plod gets a good deal and more so with the monthly brown envelope at the end of
the career so why is he out? An axe to grind? Stated the obvious that the majority of Traffic officers feel the system is being abused.
Could have been a good programme but lacked, as per usual, objective comment from "the other side" to balance up.
Sorry - to me usual Granada dross.
.....dusts down old Nato helmet and nomex.
OK my stance, like the rest of Joe Public, is that there is a place for Speed Cameras where there is proven need i.e. Accident Black Spots but only as a last resort where traffic engineering cannot resolve. This was their original concept.Safety Partnerships are going beyond this and therefore give weight to the argument that they are revenue collectors and an attempt to police by electronics. Read last week that there are to be another 128 erected in London this year. 128 ABS's suddenly appeared?
Now the programme. The guy doing 38 in a 30. You do not get jailed for not paying the Conditional Offer, which Granada claimed. It then goes, if not paid, to a Magistrates Court where it would appear he put two fingers up at the judiciary so for that contempt in my book he got what he deserved. As to the offence they did not take you back to the start of the BUA where I feel sure there will be 30 signs but TV played on the fact and only showed the area where only lamps were present to indicate the limit. Further they did not make any thrust as to the area not being an ABS and therefore the camera revenue collecting.
Mr Shaw - did I hear right that the reason why he was speeding was to overtake a tractor. The video shown by Blunderbus showed Shaw's vehicle no where near a tractor which came along much later. However I do agree that Blunderbus was totally out of order saying it was dangerous - rubbish. Quiet right to have been censured by his Committee. Nought out of ten there Richard.
The EX PC. Now he looked too young to have done his 25 or 27 1/2 and definately not 30 years to qualify for a pension. To me wage wise Plod gets a good deal and more so with the monthly brown envelope at the end of
the career so why is he out? An axe to grind? Stated the obvious that the majority of Traffic officers feel the system is being abused.
Could have been a good programme but lacked, as per usual, objective comment from "the other side" to balance up.
Sorry - to me usual Granada dross.
.....dusts down old Nato helmet and nomex.
Dwight VanDriver said:
OK my stance, like the rest of Joe Public, is that there is a place for Speed Cameras where there is proven need i.e. Accident Black Spots but only as a last resort where traffic engineering cannot resolve.
But this stance is wrong!!! Think about this scenario:
If you do not know the section of road in question then it follows that you dont know about the accident black spot or the camera that supposedly 'protects' it. You dont see the camera as its located around a corner and its also dark. Oh you've seen little white camera warning signs but they've been popping up along the whole journey and you havent seen any cameras so you've been desensitised to them after a while...
You go around the corner maybe only marginally over the speed limit blissfully unaware of the danger as you were not paying attention and failed to spot the warning sign for a junction just round the corner.
WHAM! you hit another car at the accident black spot because you were not paying attention (not because you were going too fast) and kill the driver and her 12 month old baby. Oh but thats ok because the camera got a nice picture of you doing 54 in a 50 so at least you can be prosecuted and everyone can say it was your speed that caused the accident.
The camera is apparently there to stop accidents and save lives. What absolute crap. IT DIDNT STOP YOUR ACCIDENT DID IT?
Now if there was a nice big sign before the corner that flashed as you went past saying 'Slow down, accident black spot'. Then the chances are the accident would never have happened. I would guess that its always possible to erect such a sign at such locations. Improved driver training may have also helped you to drive with increased levels of concentration and awareness. Ah, but then those types of signs are not self financing and dont provide jobs for people working in the speed camera industry, and driver training? Well thats way too expensive.....
>> Edited by jam1et on Tuesday 27th January 10:47
Saw part of the programme. Thought what I did see was informative, and more sympathetic to the motorist than the "Real Story"'s "investigation" last autumn.
The young looking Ex-PC? May be lucky enough to have "baby" gene. Some of us can pass for 20 years younger you know! (Course - could have been make up and lighting, or a face lift!). He may have changed his job because he simply did not like it, and found himself at odds with the laws he was supposed to enforce. I know of one who joined police on graduation, found it was not as he thought and he is now a teacher! Heard on "Countryfile" and R4's "Farming Today" that many Mags would quit if ban on hunting became law as this would be "conflict of interest" for them! So, perhaps he has variety of reasons to be EX-COP, none of which necessarily "axe to grind!", but which would be his business and no-one else's.
As for chap not being aware of "30mph/street light/no sign = 30 rule of thumb!" Surprising how many people do not know this. But then how many actually purchase a revised copy of the Code/Know Your Road Signs etc after passing L-Test! (Another good reason for a periodic assessment every 5 years or so!)
Know another downgraded road in Manchester (downgraded 40 to 30 long before Manchester joined the Scamming brigade!) The road is wide, street lamps are longer distanced apart than normal and fields on one side, houses set well back on hill from road way. You exit M60 to join the road. Turn left and you have no doubt it is 30. Turn right and you are duped into thinking it is a faster road. No repeater signs on posts is the " give away sign " to it being 30 - but people new or even returning to area can be duped. BUT speed limit signs are missing at M/way exit. Speed cam 2.5 miles up the road is huge revenue earner from all non-locals! Chap may have joined road half-way and not seen sign. Therefore, need for signs or a bit of road paint to remind folks of the limit! Agree that prog should have gone the entire length of road to pint this out. But then again, half hour is not really long enough to go into every fine detail. They can only gloss over, and they have to keep things entertaining enough to hold ephemeral concentrations!
As for accident blackspots - whatever happened to that little triangle with the exclamation mark on it? Don't see it as often as I used to! Do, however, see lots of little camera signs with no reminder of speed limit! But it would not matter how fast I was travelling if little Johnny runs away from the school bully, and appears suddenly and from nowhere in front of my car. I would still hit him. His injuries or even tragic death would possibly depend upon his size, general state of health, whereabouts on his torso I actually hit him, and the combined velocities on both car and pedestrian on impact. Cannot see how camera would stop the accident. Likewise as did happen to me once - if chap is taken ill at the wheel and collides with anything or anyone - camera could only pick up on vehicle speed.
>> Edited by WildCat on Tuesday 27th January 10:57
>> Edited by WildCat on Tuesday 27th January 10:59
The young looking Ex-PC? May be lucky enough to have "baby" gene. Some of us can pass for 20 years younger you know! (Course - could have been make up and lighting, or a face lift!). He may have changed his job because he simply did not like it, and found himself at odds with the laws he was supposed to enforce. I know of one who joined police on graduation, found it was not as he thought and he is now a teacher! Heard on "Countryfile" and R4's "Farming Today" that many Mags would quit if ban on hunting became law as this would be "conflict of interest" for them! So, perhaps he has variety of reasons to be EX-COP, none of which necessarily "axe to grind!", but which would be his business and no-one else's.
As for chap not being aware of "30mph/street light/no sign = 30 rule of thumb!" Surprising how many people do not know this. But then how many actually purchase a revised copy of the Code/Know Your Road Signs etc after passing L-Test! (Another good reason for a periodic assessment every 5 years or so!)
Know another downgraded road in Manchester (downgraded 40 to 30 long before Manchester joined the Scamming brigade!) The road is wide, street lamps are longer distanced apart than normal and fields on one side, houses set well back on hill from road way. You exit M60 to join the road. Turn left and you have no doubt it is 30. Turn right and you are duped into thinking it is a faster road. No repeater signs on posts is the " give away sign " to it being 30 - but people new or even returning to area can be duped. BUT speed limit signs are missing at M/way exit. Speed cam 2.5 miles up the road is huge revenue earner from all non-locals! Chap may have joined road half-way and not seen sign. Therefore, need for signs or a bit of road paint to remind folks of the limit! Agree that prog should have gone the entire length of road to pint this out. But then again, half hour is not really long enough to go into every fine detail. They can only gloss over, and they have to keep things entertaining enough to hold ephemeral concentrations!
As for accident blackspots - whatever happened to that little triangle with the exclamation mark on it? Don't see it as often as I used to! Do, however, see lots of little camera signs with no reminder of speed limit! But it would not matter how fast I was travelling if little Johnny runs away from the school bully, and appears suddenly and from nowhere in front of my car. I would still hit him. His injuries or even tragic death would possibly depend upon his size, general state of health, whereabouts on his torso I actually hit him, and the combined velocities on both car and pedestrian on impact. Cannot see how camera would stop the accident. Likewise as did happen to me once - if chap is taken ill at the wheel and collides with anything or anyone - camera could only pick up on vehicle speed.
>> Edited by WildCat on Tuesday 27th January 10:57
>> Edited by WildCat on Tuesday 27th January 10:59
Sorry geezers I'm going to stand in the unpopular corner with my old mate DVD on this.
Totally agree, as have said in another thread, cameras should only be used as a last resort when all other measures have failed, and where excess speed over the limit is the real problem. If only used like this then surely the message that a camera would have is "hey this really IS a dodgy spot here."
The problem ,as many have pointed out and was rather obliquely referred to by the ex traffic guy, is that this is not the way they are actually being used. The result is that this strong message is diluted to the point where people are saying an old blackspot sign would be more effective. Equally as TRL point out the electronic signs are 3x more effective than cameras. Why is this? Perhaps because these are messages which nowadays are rare compared to the camera's one note samba.
Again DVD it is agreed that Dickie B should be ashamed of himself over that press con. Just to be devil's advocate re Mr Shaw and the tractor, what is to say that the tractor had not pulled into a layby just before the brow to let other traffic past after Mr Shaw? However I agree that Mr Shaw was illegal but not as accused by Mr B.
One problem in my view is that too many influential people, for that read politicians & anti car fraternity, misunderstand the message that speed limits try to give.
In my limited view speed limits are merely a very blunt tool to try to indicate to drivers the relative dangers of various stretches of road, ie you may encounter more dangers on this 30 bit compared to this stretch set at 50. As for NSL, to me all that says is possibly this stretch hasn't been evaluated all that closely and it really is just down to you the driver. After that the actual number within the red circle is largely irrelevant, its all down to the driver to behave appropriately within this overall framework and the situation at that time. Again the problem is that this blunt messaging tool (set limits) has again been devalued by folks messing when they don't really know what they are doing.
Some will choose to stick to the limit, others will not. Both parties think the other one is wrong but that's life.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 27th January 12:09
Totally agree, as have said in another thread, cameras should only be used as a last resort when all other measures have failed, and where excess speed over the limit is the real problem. If only used like this then surely the message that a camera would have is "hey this really IS a dodgy spot here."
The problem ,as many have pointed out and was rather obliquely referred to by the ex traffic guy, is that this is not the way they are actually being used. The result is that this strong message is diluted to the point where people are saying an old blackspot sign would be more effective. Equally as TRL point out the electronic signs are 3x more effective than cameras. Why is this? Perhaps because these are messages which nowadays are rare compared to the camera's one note samba.
Again DVD it is agreed that Dickie B should be ashamed of himself over that press con. Just to be devil's advocate re Mr Shaw and the tractor, what is to say that the tractor had not pulled into a layby just before the brow to let other traffic past after Mr Shaw? However I agree that Mr Shaw was illegal but not as accused by Mr B.
One problem in my view is that too many influential people, for that read politicians & anti car fraternity, misunderstand the message that speed limits try to give.
In my limited view speed limits are merely a very blunt tool to try to indicate to drivers the relative dangers of various stretches of road, ie you may encounter more dangers on this 30 bit compared to this stretch set at 50. As for NSL, to me all that says is possibly this stretch hasn't been evaluated all that closely and it really is just down to you the driver. After that the actual number within the red circle is largely irrelevant, its all down to the driver to behave appropriately within this overall framework and the situation at that time. Again the problem is that this blunt messaging tool (set limits) has again been devalued by folks messing when they don't really know what they are doing.
Some will choose to stick to the limit, others will not. Both parties think the other one is wrong but that's life.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 27th January 12:09
Jamlet
If you cannot ID probable ABS ahead then your observations need honing. Because a junction is clear doesn't mean some numpty will shoot out from beyond the visibility splay if you get my drift. BE AWARE.
Signs are there if you look. LA will do owt to save a bob and will generally have plasterd the area with signs, lines etc. Proliferation of these indicates an easing of the right foot to weigh it all up as does loads of tyre marks on the road, holes through hedges, I don't need to go on do I?????
DVD
If you cannot ID probable ABS ahead then your observations need honing. Because a junction is clear doesn't mean some numpty will shoot out from beyond the visibility splay if you get my drift. BE AWARE.
Signs are there if you look. LA will do owt to save a bob and will generally have plasterd the area with signs, lines etc. Proliferation of these indicates an easing of the right foot to weigh it all up as does loads of tyre marks on the road, holes through hedges, I don't need to go on do I?????
DVD
jam1et said:
OK my stance, like the rest of Joe Public, is that there is a place for Speed Cameras where there is proven need i.e. Accident Black Spots but only as a last resort where traffic engineering cannot resolve.
But this stance is wrong!!! Think about this scenario:
If you do not know the section of road in question then it follows that you dont know about the accident black spot or the camera that supposedly 'protects' it. You dont see the camera as its located around a corner and its also dark. Oh you've seen little white camera warning signs but they've been popping up along the whole journey and you havent seen any cameras so you've been desensitised to them after a while...
You go around the corner maybe only marginally over the speed limit blissfully unaware of the danger as you were not paying attention and failed to spot the warning sign for a junction just round the corner.
WHAM! you hit another car at the accident black spot because you were not paying attention (not because you were going too fast) and kill the driver and her 12 month old baby. Oh but thats ok because the camera got a nice picture of you doing 54 in a 50 so at least you can be prosecuted and everyone can say it was your speed that caused the accident.
The camera is apparently there to stop accidents and save lives. What absolute crap. IT DIDNT STOP YOUR ACCIDENT DID IT?
Now if there was a nice big sign before the corner that flashed as you went past saying 'Slow down, accident black spot'. Then the chances are the accident would never have happened. I would guess that its always possible to erect such a sign at such locations. Improved driver training may have also helped you to drive with increased levels of concentration and awareness. Ah, but then those types of signs are not self financing and dont provide jobs for people working in the speed camera industry, and driver training? Well thats way too expensive.....
>> Edited by jam1et on Tuesday 27th January 10:47
wow - you've pointed out 3 or 4 things that worry me about how little care you would take on a road that you don't know. Surely you would take MORE care in an unfamiliar area?
And along the lines of this point the signs that flash "slow down" when you approach them are only of use to people who don't know the area. There is one of these signs near me and you can tell the local drivers from the others simply because they've seen it so many times they now ignore it.
Flat in Fifth said:
Totally agree, as have said in another thread, cameras should only be used as a last resort when all other measures have failed, and where excess speed over the limit is the real problem. If only used like this then surely the message that a camera would have is "hey this really IS a dodgy spot here."
OK, well in that case we would never need cameras because other measures have proved to be far better at improving road safety. How many places do you know of where all other measures have been tried and found to be unsatisfactory compared to having a camera installed?
I doubt theres a single accident black spot in the country that couldnt be re-engineered or at least have flashing warning signs erected instead of cameras. In fact I expect its a lot more difficult to install a camera than it is a road sign. The problem is they dont bother trying these other methods because they are not self financing. They just stick a camera up and say thay're doing everything they can to aid road safety. Rubbish!
Read safespeed.org, there has been no reliable evidence which proves that cameras reduce the number of fatalities on our roads.
Are they even really required out side of schools? Ok, local people may slow down as they know of the cameras existence, but non-locals wouldnt. Surely the number of signs informing drivers of the school just up the road and the number of speed humps, painted warnings, and road narrowing schemes are adequate. If a driver speeds through there then all a camer is going to do catch him, not stop him doing it. And dont forget a camera only monitors a few metres of the road, kids dont all convientiently cross at the same point in the road. How many kids are run over right outside school anyway? (serious question?)
Dwight VanDriver said:
Jamlet
If you cannot ID probable ABS ahead then your observations need honing. Because a junction is clear doesn't mean some numpty will shoot out from beyond the visibility splay if you get my drift. BE AWARE.
Try reading my post, I said thats its better driver tuition thats needed to improve driver awareness.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Signs are there if you look. LA will do owt to save a bob and will generally have plasterd the area with signs, lines etc. Proliferation of these indicates an easing of the right foot to weigh it all up as does loads of tyre marks on the road, holes through hedges, I don't need to go on do I?????
DVD
I dont really understand how this relates to your previous post.
What I do know is that flashing road signs have been proven to be 3 times more effective at slowing down drivers than cameras (source safespeed.org). There is one in my county at a notorious ABS on the road between Wellington and Taunton. It works a treat. Of course they need to be used sparingly and only where there is a real danger otherwise desenitisation will occur.
slarty said:
wow - you've pointed out 3 or 4 things that worry me about how little care you would take on a road that you don't know. Surely you would take MORE care in an unfamiliar area?
I'm not talking about me! I would certainly take more care. I'm talking hypothetically. Obviously everyone doesnt drive with the appropriate level of care, attention and speed, if they did we'd never have any accidents on our roads.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff