Petrol prices to increase tomorrow

[CotoChris]

On the local main road we don't have speed cameras but speed lights, so go over the limit the traffic light turns red. Across the river in Spain they have the same sistem except the lights are always red and only change to green as a car approaches below the limit. Also in Spain they are having speed cameras now and very well hidden unlike the UK ones. I've been flashed a couple of times in the last two years but as car is from another country they don't bother going through the beurocratic international fines~.

[captainnemo]

In response to a previous post, actually it is the case that cameras are routinely placed on roads subsequent to a revised (always lower) limit. One could cite the A2, A10, A12, A3 (see a trend developing???) I did not suggest that this was always the case any more than I argue that there may not be a rationale for cameras in certain locations. Nobody queries traffic light cameras for example.

In all the above instances dual carriageway roads were limited down, sometimes to 40, which is ridiculous for a major road. Particularly where pedestrians are already excluded from such roads or there might be a significant barrier between the carriageways.

Curiously, cameras are now beginning to appear on motorways despite the government previously telling us how safe such roads were.

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by captainnemo

In response to a previous post, actually it is the case that cameras are routinely placed on roads subsequent to a revised (always lower) limit. One could cite the A2, A10, A12, A3 (see a trend developing???) I did not suggest that this was always the case any more than I argue that there may not be a rationale for cameras in certain locations. Nobody queries traffic light cameras for example.

In all the above instances dual carriageway roads were limited down, sometimes to 40, which is ridiculous for a major road. Particularly where pedestrians are already excluded from such roads or there might be a significant barrier between the carriageways.

Curiously, cameras are now beginning to appear on motorways despite the government previously telling us how safe such roads were.

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.

[captainnemo]

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.

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by captainnemo

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

Sort of. Alot of the police forces now have new cameras which check for Tax, MOT, Insurance etc.. (it's all linked together now) and regularly have traps to catch those who don't have one or all of the above valid covers. I see them once a month on the A64 in various places.

[captainnemo]

Originally Posted by Bantam

Sort of. Alot of the police forces now have new cameras which check for Tax, MOT, Insurance etc.. (it's all linked together now) and regularly have traps to catch those who don't have one or all of the above valid covers. I see them once a month on the A64 in various places.

I agree that camera technology now exists to check tax, MoT, insurance etc against a central database (hence the barcode on your tax disc which can be read by camera) and I am fairly relaxed about that 'intrusion' since I have all the above and frankly resent anyone else driving without them.

This does not change the fact that 'speed/safety' cameras do not address the above and were never designed to.

I am all in favour of technology freeing the police from mundane process so they can devote more time to making the streets safer but it is important to recognise that sometimes technology is misused.

English law has for centuries been predicated on the simple principle that the accused is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Speed cameras turn that minor legal principle on its head, guilt is automatically assumed on the basis of a photograph and it is incumbent on the driver to prove innocence.

They have even changed the law to excessively penalise drivers who cannot demonstrate good reason for providing evidence relating to such photos and let us not forget that the authorities concede that vehicle licence plates are being cloned at progressively higher rates.

Could you state with certainty where you might have been at a particular time on a day two or three weeks previously? And provide proof? Most of us could not.

The argument will continue as long as there are cameras, some are wholly for them, some wholly against. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, we appreciate that there is a place for cameras but we recognise that all too many are sited to make money rather than make us safer and that ain't fair.

Interesting that speed cameras are routinely vandalised, yet traffic light cameras which similarly issue points and fines are never attacked (perhaps because people recognise they serve a specific purpose, dealing with a safety issue that is appropriately addressed by camera technology.