Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bantam I'm sure that Stephen Ladyman announced a review of these type of camera placements, and general speed management.
I agree - there are many of these 'dual carriageway yet 50mph with loads of camera' zones - a couple on the A1 spring to mind. Especially the one near RAF Wittering in Lincs - There are fields all around, in the middle of the countryside - yet they've reduced the limit for what reason?
Also, another amazing scam is the M42 around Birmingham. I have been around it on a sunday afternoon where there wasn't another car on the road and yet the speed limit was pegged at 40mph (no accidents or incidents). I even got wifey to take a photo because I couldn't believe it.
Although the cameras on the M42 are a special case because they don't work. A massive white elephant that never got type approval - plus they're not high-viz either, so that's two points on which they're on dodgy ground although if you get done they can still fine you, however, if you then grass them up to the DoT, they will get removed from the netting-off scheme, which means they can't keep any of the money from the camera fines.  |
It is regularly the case that when Government ministers announce a 'review/inquiry/investigation etc etc' the primary intention is to get a matter out of the public eye and hopefully forgotten as soon as decently possible.
We were originally assured that cameras would be sited at accident black spots and known hazard areas. This was rapidly blurred to become 'sited in proximity' which means in real terms that a hazard on a minor road can be used to justify a camera on an adjacent major road that carries heavy traffic (and coincidentally raise money more efficiently)
Naturally the government is reluctant to provide figures for any reason other than to support the spurious safety arguments beloved by safety camera partnerships.
It is however interesting to note that since the introduction of 'safety cameras' in ever larger numbers and the burgeoning number of penalties issued, the number of deaths on our roads has remained remarkably consistent year on year.
One might also note that speed is not a significant factor in the majority of accidents, the Government Transport Laboratory figures are accepted as fairly authoritative. Curiously, the bulk of accidents are caused by bad driving (inattention, recklessness etc) and cameras tend not to record of dissuade such conduct.
What would promote safer roads would be a greater number of uniformed traffic police patrolling in marked vehicles so one should perhaps question why the traffic divisions across the country have been reduced. A notable example of this was David Blunkett announcing that hundreds of Met traffic officers would be re-allocated to addressing street violence....doh!!
The reasoning behind the cameras is brutally simple, once the installation costs have been factored into a budget, maintainance costs are minimal and there will be a constant revenue stream from each camera. In comparison, traffic police are expensive, high maintainance articles and produce little actual revenue. The fact that cameras cannot address the things that contribute to accidents other than speed is blithely ignored.
So, relax in the knowledge that so long as you pass a camera at a legal speed it will not react to any of the following; no insurance, no tax, no MOT, bald tyres, alcohol or drug impairment, vehicle unfit for use etc etc etc
Stephen Ladyman can review till the cows come home (subject to F&M restriction orders of course) but the essential vacuity of camera enforcement will never be addressed while the revenue stream remains a factor.