Re: warning speed camera

No - it means you misunderstood me.

I feel I can judge a safe speed in a given condition, as can many others. BUT, there are people who cannot, and take the signed speed limit as a guide as to what speed is safe REGARDLESS of the prevailing conditions.

Is that easier to understand?

Phil.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe CCTV is used to *enforce* any traffic regulations at the moment. It's used in patrol cars, I know, but I'm fairly sure the motorway monitoring stuff on poles and gantries wouldn't be used for a prosecution.

Perhaps one of the tame janitors around here can confirm or deby?

for 100s

simple

speed

are, in

*enforce* any

here...

as a

place

such, but

related to

or

system

and

purpose

as

for no

that

have

yet more Orwellian spying for relatively minor returns ... I just wish the Government would focus police on bettering the 6 or 7% burglary detection rate common in so many areas.

Perhaps if they tried to make a quicker getaway....

Ah, but "if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear", right?

Indeed.

-- JackH

A few weeks ago while coming out of Blackpool I noticed parked in a lay-by just before the motorway and at the side of Tesco's a police car with a low profile camera on the parcel shelf the guys I know in Blackpool say its there regularly

As a second thought has any one counted the Gatso cameras on Blackpool Prom

As a third why has Blackpool but a blanket 30 MPH speed limit throughout the borough enforced by mobile cameras and they want visitors !!

Dee See

Phil Wattis mumbled:

Yes, but I don't reckon it's a good argument against the abandonment of speed limits.

"DC" mumbled:

Perhaps most visitor aren't put off by speed cameras. Certainly doesn't bother me in the slightest. I suspect it's probably just a vociferous minority who complain.

Ah, well we have a 'Safety Partnership' round these parts; a collective of Peugeot Partner / Expert vans kitted out with speed cameras, and that are financed by the local county council and run on their behalf by plod, although I believe they employ civilians to run the show.

-- JackH

On the A720, there are cases of - in extremely odd circumstances - the Police coming out and dealing with a reckless driver as a result of the CCTV cameras. Or so I've heard. AFAIK they're really there just to monitor traffic flow and such, keep an eye out for accidents.

Urban Myths of people mooning/driving nude etc and being caught by them abound, of course.

Richard

Quite. And if the police did 'scramble' because of what they saw on TV, I still think the actual charge would be based on what the police observed themselves, on the scene, rather than what had been seen on camera.

No it isn't.

It's about the safe use of speed as opposed to dumb enforcement.

I'd be absolutely delighted with increased enforcement as long as it was intelligent.

Yes, they'd like to speed with little risk of being caught.

How can they 'know'? They can suspect, but until all cameras are removed or disabled, no-one can know.

If you could just provide some independant (of your site) evidence that the effect of speed cameras distracts drivers more than using mobile phones, your argument would carry much more weight. Please don't tell us again that mobile phone use was a factor in only a very small number of accidents; this is irrelevant unless there is actual evidence of cameras/restrictions neing a factor in accidents and because people are likely to blame other factors (imagined or otherwise) to deflect blame, but rather unlikely to admit using a mobile phone and being distracted.

A tory government is no benefit if you remember 16% interest, 3million unemployed and Poll Tax.

But if you're not over the speed limit, you don't have to look out for the cameras. :)

They ARE going to be scrapped.

It's just a question of when. Every day the public is more angry. Every day the evidence that they don't work to improve road safety increases. Every day safe and responsible motorists are being fined and banned for trivial technical offences. It cannot go on.

I also recently heard (from an attendee at a high-up road safety committee at the DfT) that the government and the DfT are actively looking for an escape route from the current situation.

The vast majority of "speeding" involves travelling at safe and appropriate speeds for the conditions. You can try to spin it any way you want - but with 59% (2002 figures from VSGB) of drivers exceeding the 30mph limit at sample sites under free flowing conditions - it should be completely obvious that most cases of speeding do not result in any kind of danger. Even when motorists "interact dangerously" with child pedestrians the vast majority of outcomes are benign. Consider the figures and the speculation on:

What is "knowing"? Do we need 100% certainty to know? Do we "know" that gravity will still work tomorrow? Yet how many people would reasonably claim to "know" that a dropped object will still fall? But this is philosophy or semantics... I'm quite sure you know what I meant. :)

I agree that a greater range of evidence would be welcome. I did set up a web page to gather opinions from skilled people recently.

I also agree that mobile phones are a significant potential danger - but however dangerous mobile phones may or may not be, that doesn't alter the degree of danger posed by speed cameras.

The danger from cameras is very subtle and diffuse - they make drivers worse at driving. But if cameras did work to improve road safety, why haven't we seen an improvement in accident trends?

Oh, I don't do political arguments.

The ANPR cameras link to a number of databases including vehicles that have been stolen or known to have been used in crime. Since many criminals use vehicles which have no current keeper registered, and are therefore effectively untraceable unless they happen to be spotted by a police officer who has committed to memory one of the tens of registration numbers briefed to him or her every day, or they happen to be stopped for a "minor traffic infringement", it is proving to be an extremely effective tool in detecting crime.

The hit rate is extremely high with virtually no inconvenience to the law abiding motorist. In two operations locally ANPR cameras have been responsible for recovering several stolen vehicles, the detection of a car ringing operation, the arrest of a team of thieves operating a national stolen credit card fraud, a drug dealer, information being obtained on three people believed to be involved in burglaries, as well as the detection of numerous untaxed and uninsured vehicles, and several vehicles in dangerously unroadworthy condition being taken off of the road.

Although the latter seem to be regarded by the public at large as unwarranted persecution of the motorist until they are involved in an accident with an uninsured driver of a vehicle with no current keeper registered, who fails to stop knowing there is virtually no chance of being caught.

In alt.uk.law Paul Smith writted:

: it : should be completely obvious that most cases of speeding do not result : in any kind of danger. Even when motorists "interact dangerously" with : child pedestrians the vast majority of outcomes are benign.

Unutterably stupid argument. It should also be obvious that, just as the vast majority of drink-driving cases result from benign events, this has no bearing on the fact that it is a dangerous activity that increases the risk to oneself and others.

Gavin

The

if they

voters?

about

any way

exceeding

it

result

dangerously" with

Consider

at

benefit

are

Do we

people

still

know

evidence

using

did set

danger -

doesn't

in

unless

factor in

to

drivers

safety, why

At

north Wales plod state asfact/fiction

"Fiction The mobile enforcement vehicles are hiding behind bushes to try to catch motorists out! Fact Our specially designed blue and white mobile enforcement vehicles are clearly marked with the Arrive Alive logo (red cross, green circle and dragon) and safety camera signs. They park in open places, respecting other road users and have exemption in certain locations to park on pavements/ clearways in order to carry out their duty."

I can vouch for the fact that they deliberately obscure the vehicles behind foliage and corners ... and will start to take my digi camera out with me to catch them out on this !

"Fiction The police are making money out of the project! Fact The police are NOT making any money from the campaign. All money received from speeding fines is reinvested in cameras, enforcement officers, equipment, education and administration "

Jeepers ... by their own admission the money goes into expanding the service so of course they're making money from it!!!!

"Fiction You always go to the same locations to carry out your mobile enforcement! Fact With the Arrive Alive campaign, 85% of the mobile enforcement carried out in North Wales is dedicated to the target routes. These routes have a high number of killed or seriously injured victims on them and our aim is to reduce these casualties. 15% of the mobile enforcement will be undertaken outside educational premises during school hours where a speeding problem has been identified, at dual carriageway roadworks where there is a temporary speed restriction and on seasonal routes. "

Of course they're always in the same spots ... their own schedules on the the website even lists the regular spots they go to .... and the text above even admits it ....

"Fiction The mobile camera can't see me if I can't see it! Fact The technology used in the mobile cameras is reliable in excess of 500 metres. Speeding motorists can be photographed either approaching or moving away from the site. Motorcyclists are NOT exempt."

..but .... if they were placing themselves in as visible a location as the attempted to imply in the first fiction/fact statement then at 500 metres motorists would be able to see the vans ....

"Fiction You are wasting valuable police resources by concentrating on speeding motorists rather than real criminals! Fact These are additional resources, which do not detract from other policing duties. All officers involved in the project are paid for by speeding motorists, therefore freeing up money to pay for additional officers for North Wales Police. Breaking the legal speed limit is against the law. Motorists should be aware that if they exceed that limit, the risk of detection is high."

but they said they were'nt making money from it .. now they're saying its self financing and frees officers for other duties .... what like improving the 6% burglary detection rate ... down from 49% when Brunstrom took over!

"Fiction If I phone Central Ticket Office or approach the Enforcement Officer I can talk my way out of a ticket! Fact The fixed penalty process is designed to minimise cost and time. If you choose to mitigate the matter your case will be passed to the courts to deal with. Penalties may increase at the Judge's discretion. The Enforcement Officer on the day is NOT in a position to remove or delete any pictures taken whilst on duty."

So the officer becomes merely an automoton with no discretion regarding mitigating circumstances, current traffic and weather conditions etc .... and it sounds like a thinly veiled threat the line about "Penalties may increase etc ....."

"Fiction This is a violation of my Human Rights. Fact The Human Rights Act came into force in October 2000. In December

2000 The Privy Council upheld a ruling on a case in Scotland, which clearly indicates that the Human Rights Act is NOT infringed under this process. "

I'm confused why they quote Scottish law as I was under the impression that Englan and Wales was under a different legal system than Scotland, plus this has not gone to a higher EU court as yet ...