"Hidden" speed (tax) cameras return...??

#1
People may not be aware that the initial 'speed camera' partnerships (more colloquially known as scamera partnerships) between police and councils are now no longer bound by 'the rules' which state that cameras should be bright yellow, in obvious places, easy to see and so on......

An article in "The Times" today cites Chief Police Officers making a case for a return to hidden cameras, camouflaged to catch those that slow down because they know where cameras are - and then promptly speed up again.

Personally I am adamant that these cameras were f'k all to do with safety (in the main) but were a handy source of revenue for various bodies.... By all means have them on built up urban through ways, and outside schools, hospitals, shopping centres etc - but get the bloody things off A-roads and Motorways... especially if the thieving bar-stewards are going to hide them again.

Article to follow:-

The Times
June 5, 2007
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent


Motorists face the return of hidden speed cameras after Britain’s top traffic policeman said that more lives would be saved if drivers were unable to predict where they could be caught.

Med Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and head of roads policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers, has opened the way for forces to stop painting cameras yellow or informing drivers where they will be using mobile camera vans.

In an interview with The Times, he said: “I have always thought it strange that speed cameras were so easily identified. We need to think about whether greater compliance will be delivered by using technology in a less conspicuous way. I might put up Neighbourhood Watch signs but I don’t tell burglars when I am specifically running an anticrime operation.”

Mr Hughes believes that road deaths are not falling fast enough partly because too many drivers slow down only briefly as they pass cameras. He wants camera partnerships, run by police and councils, to take advantage of a change in the way that cameras are funded.

Until April, partnerships were allowed to keep a proportion of speeding fines. In return, they had to abide by a set of rules, including a requirement for cameras to be conspicuous and clearly signposted.

The Government changed the system after protests that police had a financial incentive to catch drivers. The partnerships now receive a fixed grant but they are no longer bound by the rules that stated that “camera housings must be coloured yellow” and be visible from 60 metres (197ft) on a road with a 40mph limit or less and 100 metres on other roads.

The rules also required partnerships to publicise the location of mobile cameras. Mr Hughes said: “The money is no longer linked to the rules and therefore we no longer have to abide by those rules. When you do get hit by hidden cameras you can blame those people who said cameras were cash generators.”

The partnership in North Wales, where Richard Brunstrom is Chief Constable, has already stopped publishing details of where it is carrying out speed enforcement. Inspector Essi Ahari said: “We will be enforcing anywhere and all the time, including using better lenses to operate at night.”

Another rule that has ceased to apply had required partnerships to focus almost all their enforcement on roads where there had been several deaths or serious injuries.

North Wales and Cumbria now focus on roads which they believe to be dangerous but where there have been no serious crashes.

Inspector Ahari said: “We used to have to say to schools that we could not enforce because no one had died yet. Now we can go and deal with the problem before the deaths happen.”

Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said that it would oppose hiding all speed cameras but would support trials in which signs were put up on certain routes telling drivers that hidden cameras were operating.

What he said

“ I find it weird that there is this idea that enforcing speeding law is somehow unsporting”

“ We need to discuss raising speed limits when people get used to adhering to the current ones”

“ We should be teaching 10 and 11-year-olds about their responsibilities when driving a car, not just how to be a safe pedestrian or cyclist”

“ Speed cameras have released officers for other duties by automating the enforcement process. They are like burglar alarms, which are just older and more accepted”

“ Reducing the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50mg would make a valuable public statement that it’s impossible to have even one drink and be certain you would pass a breathalyser test”
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/news/article1884306.ece


A variety/range of comments posted at the bottom of the article....
 
#3
No big surprise on this. Whether they're really for tax / improving police statistics or even a genuine attempt to improve road safety, the fact is that cameras are cheap and give measurable results.

My personal belief is that there are far greater risks on the road than people being a few mph over an arbitrary speed limit (or even a few points over an arbitrary drink limit come to that).

But other, generally more dangerous, acts such as tailgating on motorways or driving too fast (even within a speed limit) for the road and traffic conditions are a hell of a lot harder to (a) detect (b) measure and (c) prove.

How do you produce a non-subjective test for tailgating? Or an objective one for what is a "safe" speed on that slightly wet road, with a sharp bend and a badly placed pedestrian crossing? The thing that has always concerned me about rigid speed enfrcement is that, by implication, keeping within the limit is "safe" driving. So, when you hit that child at 25 in a 30 limit with parked cars everywhere, it wasn't your fault.

And before someone suggests that limits could be lowered even more for these places - if you can't judge what a safe speed is in any given conditions without reading a big lollipop with a number chosen by someone who's not there then you really shouldn't be driving!

Personally, I never drink drive, I sometimes speed, and in 22 years I've driven about 300000 miles with no accidents.
 
#4
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
There is always one! No one - not even your maiden aunt - can guarantee to keep to the speed limit all the time, every time... to err is human and all that (especially on some roads, where it is very difficult to work out what the actual limit is). Therefore, cameras penalise genuine mistakes as well as overtly criminal activity... there is none of the discretion which must be at the heart of any equitable enforcement system.

Further, the evidence shows that automated enforcement tends to catch the law abiding: an estimated 2.2 million cars are unregistered (up from 1.2 million), allowing their drivers to escape penalties - further adding to the lack of equity in the system.

Then, our brave copper misses the point. According to road minister Stephen Ladyman, visible cameras are supposed to deter people from speeding. If they are hidden, they cease to perform that function.

See Hansard:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/a/st060321/pm/60321s04.htm
 
#6
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
WELL SAID!

I am sick to the back teeth of people constantly moaning about speed cameras being another form of taxation.

They only work as a form of taxation if you break the law and speed!

Therefore surely the best way to beat the government at their own game is not to speed, meaning the government won't tax you and at the end of the month you have that little bit more left in your bank account.

It's really quite simple!
 
#8
securit said:
Why does the money not go to road safety charitys?????
A good point, keep the operating costs from the money they generate but send the rest of the cash to road safety charity groups...if its really 'safety' cameras and they are REALLY doing thier bit for road safety...then police/councils have really nothing to hide.....keep some...send the rest...you think it would ever happen....NOT

You have to wonder, if they are 'safety' cameras, why dont we never see them outside schools, or any place a whole lot of people cross the road at certain times?..
 
#9
Richard_North said:
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
There is always one! No one - not even your maiden aunt - can guarantee to keep to the speed limit all the time, every time... to err is human and all that (especially on some roads, where it is very difficult to work out what the actual limit is). Therefore, cameras penalise genuine mistakes as well as overtly criminal activity... there is none of the discretion which must be at the heart of any equitable enforcement system.

Further, the evidence shows that automated enforcement tends to catch the law abiding: an estimated 2.2 million cars are unregistered (up from 1.2 million), allowing their drivers to escape penalties - further adding to the lack of equity in the system.

Then, our brave copper misses the point. According to road minister Stephen Ladyman, visible cameras are supposed to deter people from speeding. If they are hidden, they cease to perform that function.

See Hansard:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/a/st060321/pm/60321s04.htm
hear fcuking hear

Driving is getting expensive enough soon the only people able to afford to own a vehicle and drive will be the rich and criminal.

The new road tax rates, I agree with.
The congestion charge is now spreading, I don't agree with.
Now they want to hide speed cameras to generate more cash for what? it doesn't go on the roads, as they don't maintained, does it go on more cameras? to generate more cash, which goes to......

Right where is that emigration thread......I'm off.
 
#11
"Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?
_________________



Man with a flag, what a boost to the employment figures !

WW
 
#12
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?
Where did I say I advocated speed cameras as a life saving measure?

I simply suggested a way in which fines and therefore endless ******* whining could be avoided.
 
#13
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?
Where did I say I advocated speed cameras as a life saving measure?

I simply suggested a way in which fines and therefore endless * whining could be avoided.
So complaining about something that is a money raising, infringement of liberty is 'whining' is it?

Silly me, I thought it was our right in a democracy to voice our concerns about things we think unfair.
 
#14
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?
Where did I say I advocated speed cameras as a life saving measure?

I simply suggested a way in which fines and therefore endless * whining could be avoided.
So complaining about something that is a money raising, infringement of liberty is 'whining' is it?

Silly me, I thought it was our right in a democracy to voice our concerns about things we think unfair.
What liberty has been infringed that I should feel upset about and join in with your protest?
 
#15
To the, "well just don't speed then" brigade;

1. there have been 'A' roads where the speed limit has been redued to forty MPH, and by a very strange coincidence, speed cameras cropped up on the same day! Safety my arrse.

2. As has been mentioned in previous posts, we want the drivers to be THINKING about what they are doing, not sitting at the speed limit, regardless of conditions, with only momentary glances away from the speedo, to look at the road.

3. If we are to maintan the illusion of being a free liberal society, we cannot get to the situation where everyone is permanently monitiored for every slight devialton from the law. that is where we are going. Part of being free, is being free to decide FOR MYSELF not break the law.

Tell you what, why don't we just ban all criminal thoughts and implant chips in poeples heads. If they have no intention of commiting a crime they obviously have nothing to fear - Right! If they do think bout commiting a crime, the thought police will be round super fast, ignoring the speed limits of course, to give the deviant 're-education'.

Ski.
 
#16
REMEbrat said:
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
WELL SAID!

I am sick to the back teeth of people constantly moaning about speed cameras being another form of taxation.

They only work as a form of taxation if you break the law and speed!

Therefore surely the best way to beat the government at their own game is not to speed, meaning the government won't tax you and at the end of the month you have that little bit more left in your bank account.

It's really quite simple!
Lick my ringpiece you cnut. Speed is the cause of an accident in about a third of all accidents. By all means place a cam outside every school in the country and drop the limit there to 20.
The Govt is using cameras to cut back on the Police on our roads. Answer this, how many drunk drivers has a speed camera caught, or junkie drivers, or un taxed and insured. Or foreign drivers without licences??

Cameras are a cash cow.

Have you NEVER broken the law????
 
#17
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?
Where did I say I advocated speed cameras as a life saving measure?

I simply suggested a way in which fines and therefore endless * whining could be avoided.
So complaining about something that is a money raising, infringement of liberty is 'whining' is it?

Silly me, I thought it was our right in a democracy to voice our concerns about things we think unfair.
What liberty has been infringed that I should feel upset about and join in with your protest?
The liberty that I used to enjoy that enabled me to think for myself and make judgements for myself as an adult with over a quarter of a century of accident-free driving experience. I want to drive safely because it's the sensible thing to do, not because Big Tony is spying on me.

He does that enough already.
 
#18
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?
Where did I say I advocated speed cameras as a life saving measure?

I simply suggested a way in which fines and therefore endless * whining could be avoided.
So complaining about something that is a money raising, infringement of liberty is 'whining' is it?

Silly me, I thought it was our right in a democracy to voice our concerns about things we think unfair.
What liberty has been infringed that I should feel upset about and join in with your protest?
The liberty that I used to enjoy that enabled me to think for myself and make judgements for myself as an adult with over a quarter of a century of accident-free driving experience. I want to drive safely because it's the sensible thing to do, not because Big Tony is spying on me.

He does that enough already.
You still have the liberty to decide to drive within the speed limits.
 
#19
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Awol said:
BlotBangRub said:
Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?
Where did I say I advocated speed cameras as a life saving measure?

I simply suggested a way in which fines and therefore endless * whining could be avoided.
So complaining about something that is a money raising, infringement of liberty is 'whining' is it?

Silly me, I thought it was our right in a democracy to voice our concerns about things we think unfair.
What liberty has been infringed that I should feel upset about and join in with your protest?
The liberty that I used to enjoy that enabled me to think for myself and make judgements for myself as an adult with over a quarter of a century of accident-free driving experience. I want to drive safely because it's the sensible thing to do, not because Big Tony is spying on me.

He does that enough already.
You still have the liberty to decide to drive within the speed limits.
Should cameras be everywhere then? It would save lives.
 
#20
Locally, I've seen flashing LED signs advising when you pass 20mph. TWENTY? I can practically go that fast in my fcuking wheelchair, never mind my motor!

Altho I can appreciate and understand the reasoning behind speed cameras, there's no denying that they turned into more of a 'nice little earner' for Councils rather than serve the purpose for which they were intended. Mebbe a bit more effort should be put into teaching proper road skills - no U-turns on busy streets, tail gating, cutting up etc.
Better skills = better driver

edit to add: the 20mph sign is on a main roads with no schools! :?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads