Speed Cameras

[dave1]

The outcome of this may be very interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/405992...be-illegal.html

[Jiberjaber]

News flash....

Speeding to be claimed as illegal!

A source close to the government today is cited as stating if people break the posted speed limit, then they could be prosecuted... Previously all drivers could go faster than the speed limit if they thought it was all right to do so. There was also discussion of making shop lifting legal in these times of recession.

:P

LOL

Irrespective of what people claim, speed cameras arn't put up for a revenue stream. In fact, there is now active work by safety camera partnerships to reduce the number of activations by placing more warnings before the actual cameras and the use of vehicle activated signs to slow people down. They measure the success as a reduction in camera activations.

If people dont speed then why are speed cameras a problem? If people decide to go faster than the speed limit, then they should accept the risk of having consequences to their actions.

[Geoffers]

Those signs that tell you your speed and nothing else wind me up. There's one on a bypass not far from where I live.

You see all the idiots trying to get the fastest speed on them and filming it with their mates! Totally negates their purpose.

Sorry,

[dave1]

If people dont speed then why are speed cameras a problem? If people decide to go faster than the speed limit, then they should accept the risk of having consequences to their actions.

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the part of your response above,you seem to be missing the point somewhat!

If it transpires that the cameras in question are in fact in use illegally (due to oversight by the government) then how can the Police and the CPS rely on the "evidence" provided by illegal devices. Where would you suggest that the line be drawn over usage of illegal devices by the authorities or anyone else?

Furthermore, should it be decided that the cameras are illegally in use, apart from the cost involved in overturning points and bans and refunding fines and any costs which were imposed, would the government then be liable for consequential losses incurred, such as higher insurance premiums, loss of income if jobs were lost as a result?

[DJ Wozza]

Irrespective of what people claim, speed cameras aren't put up for a revenue stream.

Jason you say sooooooooooooo made me chuckle

What you say about speed camera partnerships may well be correct. But what I have highlighted above

doesn't hold water at all re the Swindon Councilors actions to ban them. CLICK ME

AA president Edmund King welcomed the council's move.

'For too long, there has been an over-reliance on cameras. They are too often seen as the first and last resort,' he said.

Vince Yearly, of the Institute of Advanced Motoring, said: 'Speed cameras have been a substitute for active policing.

Also lets not forget all the many Speed Cameras I know of that are DELIBERATELY HIDDEN behind

street furniture (road signs, pedestrian or vehicle bridges, trees etc) let alone all the others in other

parts of the country.

Yes Speeding is against the law, but to argue argue the Cameras are not put up for a revenue stream is

im my opinion quite frankly ridiculous. I see plenty of them along long straight pieces of road with no side

turnings, yet not enough around Schools.......

"The Department for Transport annual results - published on the 25th of September - show that, nationally,

only 6% of accidents are caused by people breaking speed limits"

[Jiberjaber]

I think it highly unlikley that they will succeed. The device used for the initial measurement is generaly taken as the primary evidence and used to initially trigger the camera, what is currently considered as being the secondary evidence, the measurement of distance over time from the two flashes and the movement in frame of the car against the road markings, could very easily be used as the primary evidence.

It is no different to how traditional speed traps operate, they rely on the PC making a judgement that you are going to fast and then confirming it with a device. This could be you going through to points on the road with the police observing or using a roadside device such as a speed gun.

The road traffic offenders act 1988 requires such decives to be be type approved, this role in part s carried out by HOSDB (previously known as the PSDB). As long as the equipment has been type approved they they can be used, there may be caveats to the type approval which have been looked at by people trying to get out of the fact they were speeding in the first place (eg, mounting arrangements and number of enforcement equipment on a gantry in a variable speed limit). Just because it says it needs approval from the Sec of State does not mean he has to write a letter himself for it to be valid, this is usualy done through an executive agency (EG, the HA provide type approval of equipment for use on the road side, but on behalf of the SoS as they are an execuative agency of the DoT).

If people believe they have been unfairly banned, then that's for them to think, but you dont get a ban for just one conviction unless it is pretty extreme! Like I said, it is just people who can't take the consequence of their actions. They are trying to waste public money in a games of words, with the associated media involvement.

[Bazza]

strangely enough the cameras and speed traps are normally located where speeding occurs

ie:

dual carriage ways

long straight roads

motorways

and not where speeding doesnt or shouldnt occur

ie:

schools

playgrounds

built up pedestrian heavy areas

now speeding occurs because drivers do have the ability to use enough intelligence to decide for themselves that the road is suitable for a little excess speed in defiance of some archaic law made up when cars used on-coming wind to slow them down

generally speeding doesnt occur when outside schools and playgrounds etc, because believe it or not most motorists do actually have a little sense in knowing when to slow down a bit, and determining a safe speed

but the consequences of both scenarios are totally different

long straight roads etc , not a lot to hit, bit of excess speed isnt going to have much impact

but with schools etc a bit of speeding can have drastic results

now if you had the choice to improve road safety where would you place them ?

if you had the choice of raising revenue where would you place them ?

if you get a ticket for 50mph on a 40mph dual carriage way you tend to get sympathy and feel hard done by

when its for doing 40 or even 35 outside a school, you dont get any sympathy and just feel a bit ashamed

me, i tend to think safety should be prevalent

[Yeldarb]

The Milton keynes Council have just put up average speed check camersa along a road just out side my house. Between 2 roundabouts.

The thing is I have lived there far 11 years and only seen accidents along the road from cars pulling ONTO the road and not looking when joining the road.

The road is 2 miles long (tops) so to average 70mph you really will have to be pushing it.

BUT (the good news) anyone found speeding will be let off as the cameras haven't been officialy sanctioned by the government for use on public roads.

[Jiberjaber]

Irrespective of what people claim, speed cameras aren't put up for a revenue stream.

Jason you say sooooooooooooo made me chuckle

What you say about speed camera partnerships may well be correct. But what I have highlighted above

doesn't hold water at all re the Swindon Councilors actions to ban them. CLICK ME

AA president Edmund King welcomed the council's move.

'For too long, there has been an over-reliance on cameras. They are too often seen as the first and last resort,' he said.

Vince Yearly, of the Institute of Advanced Motoring, said: 'Speed cameras have been a substitute for active policing.

Also lets not forget all the many Speed Cameras I know of that are DELIBERATELY HIDDEN behind

street furniture (road signs, pedestrian or vehicle bridges, trees etc) let alone all the others in other

parts of the country.

Yes Speeding is against the law, but to argue argue the Cameras are not put up for a revenue stream is

im my opinion quite frankly ridiculous. I see plenty of them along long straight pieces of road with no side

turnings, yet not enough around Schools.......

"The Department for Transport annual results - published on the 25th of September - show that, nationally,

only 6% of accidents are caused by people breaking speed limits"

Woz, there wouldn’t be a revenue stream if people didn’t break the speed limit though would there? I am no angel when it comes to speed, but I do so in the knowledge that if I am caught it is my own fault. The Swindon thing can be taken with a pinch - political points can be gained from any thing if spun right :)

If the camera's are deliberately hidden, that may indicate not knowing the actual road where a risk associated with exceeding the speed limit is been taken... it could be argued that that isn't the best place to therefore take that risk.. I am not going to deny that some installations are just wrong for a number of reasons, but some may argue if the speed limit were being adhered to, why would it matter.

Anyway - I usually try to avoid these types of threads as they just turn in to a Marmite discussion on speed cameras and "wont someone think of the children" vrs "speed limits don’t apply to me 'cause I am totally in control all the time". :D

There is evidence that people who commit seemingly minor crimes are usually bigger criminals than you might think. Speeding, insurance and tax discs etc result in more crime detection than just the initial stop... I am not trying to label every speeder as a hardened crim but hey - every speed camera is a cash cow for the speeding Nazi's!.

If you run a tax/insurance/speed operation, usually about 50% caught are actually crim's wanted for other things as well!

Anyway... gone way off topic now :)

EDIT:

Barry - I agree about the safety aspect, which is the only time I have recommended their use. I thnk we can all think of locations where it isn't evident the problem the cameras are there to contribute to removing, but then I can think of a fair few where it is as well... like I said some will be not sited properly.

Yeld - are you sure they are average speed camera and not journey time measurement or part of the Police network of ANPR?? Just because the problem isn't outside the front door doesn't mean it isn't somewhere else in that part of the network and other issues result in it being placed where you find it... loads of reasons why it could be there, cost is usualy a good one :)

[aido]

Out of all the speed cameras the ones that seem to have had the best effect are the SPECs ones that work out the average speed imho.

If it was me I'd look at deploying more of those if budget would allow - sleeping policemen just knacker your car and the Gatso types just result in people just slamming their brakes on and then speeding up afterwards. As for the Truvelos I think everyone deployed around here is backwards as the lines are on the wrong side of the camera - unless they initially put them up expecting Gatsos?

[Jiberjaber]

Aido, the Truvel ones can be configured to work in both directions (like Gaso's can be rotated).

I agree on SPECS to a point but I can't say much more LOL Ever since the publication of how to avoid SPECS2 by changing lanes, it has lost some of it's value, but that's not my only concern.

Regarding money, you would believe how much "conscience money" is plowed in to safety schemes by the private sector - i believe your word for it would be "mega" :D

[Yeldarb]

Yeld - are you sure they are average speed camera and not journey time measurement or part of the Police network of ANPR?? Just because the problem isn't outside the front door doesn't mean it isn't somewhere else in that part of the network and other issues result in it being placed where you find it... loads of reasons why it could be there, cost is usualy a good one :)

Deff. speed cameras, even has a sign saying "average speed cameras on test".

I beleve a 50mph limit is also on the way for most of the MK grid roads.

[DJ Wozza]

Woz, there wouldn’t be a revenue stream if people didn’t break the speed limit though would there?

True

If the camera's are deliberately hidden, that may indicate not knowing the actual road where a risk associated with exceeding the speed limit is been taken...

Are you saying the people deciding on the location don't know the road well enough or the driver ?

[aido]

Aido, the Truvel ones can be configured to work in both directions (like Gaso's can be rotated).

I agree on SPECS to a point but I can't say much more LOL Ever since the publication of how to avoid SPECS2 by changing lanes, it has lost some of it's value, but that's not my only concern.

Regarding money, you would believe how much "conscience money" is plowed in to safety schemes by the private sector - i believe your word for it would be "mega" :D

:winky:

Are you really serious about changing lanes - I honestly thought that was disinformation that had been put out there by the relevant forces - if it really does stop it working I hope whoever wrote the code for it got seriously reprimanded!

As for the Truvelo's someone needs to give the council up here a nudge as they've been the wrong way around for the last four years

[Jiberjaber]

Yeldarb - it could be a speed reduction to increase road capacity? (roads have optimum speeds for through put) You might not see queues at the moment, but there may be something elsewhere on the network which will contribute to traffic in your area shortly for example. Speed reduction isnt always about safety but also congestion, which is just as much to the forefront of local authorities as is safety.

Woz, there wouldn’t be a revenue stream if people didn’t break the speed limit though would there?

True

If the camera's are deliberately hidden, that may indicate not knowing the actual road where a risk associated with exceeding the speed limit is been taken...

Are you saying the people deciding on the location don't know the road well enough or the driver ?

Woz - Sorry - thought it was in the sentence!... I am on about the driver - I know I would prefer to know the road a bit before I decided to razz down it :)

Aido - the type approval is/was for continuos links, i.e. along a lane. So the equipment is capable of matching VRN's irrespective of the lane, the machinary of law required it to be by lane only iirc. Personaly I wouldnt bother as you dont know which link is enforcing, so you could have a run of 7 enforcement camera sites, and only 2 pairs are in operation (apart from the big light on some now!) but which and how do you know which camera is looking at your lane. The camera housing and camera both can be aligned independantly, so you could have the housing looking at a lane, but the camera looking at the actual adjacent lane.

[dave1]

If people believe they have been unfairly banned, then that's for them to think, but you dont get a ban for just one conviction unless it is pretty extreme! Like I said, it is just people who can't take the consequence of their actions. They are trying to waste public money in a games of words, with the associated media involvement.

I did not say that only one conviction would result in a ban. If you read the article correctly, it states that successive governments have failed to ratify these cameras in line with the perceived requirements of the 1991 road traffic act. You appear to have a vested interest in the continued use of these devices but it is noticeable that you actually call them "speed cameras" rather than "safety cameras".

The point really is that as with every other offence, not just motoring, to obtain a conviction requires evidence which is legally obtained. If evidence which leads to a conviction is later found to illegally obtained then it would be unlikely to be allowed and would normally lead to the conviction being quashed.

[DJ Wozza]

How does the driver not knowing the road particulary well have anything to do with deliberately hidden cameras ?

With only the top box section painted yellow, it is very easy to 'hide' a camera behind road furniture, with the

support shaft painted the same colour as road sign support poles......

Like I said, too many deliberately hidden cameras for fund raising.

What about the extra special ones several metres higher than the normal ones ?

(again with just the top box painted yellow)

Sorry but you won't convince me with that arguement they are not put there to revenue raise.

[aido]

There are loads up near Stockport near Gord and Steve that are painted green - nearly been caught out by those so many times now!!

[Jiberjaber]

If people believe they have been unfairly banned, then that's for them to think, but you dont get a ban for just one conviction unless it is pretty extreme! Like I said, it is just people who can't take the consequence of their actions. They are trying to waste public money in a games of words, with the associated media involvement.

I did not say that only one conviction would result in a ban. If you read the article correctly, it states that successive governments have failed to ratify these cameras in line with the perceived requirements of the 1991 road traffic act. You appear to have a vested interest in the continued use of these devices but it is noticeable that you actually call them "speed cameras" rather than "safety cameras".

The point really is that as with every other offence, not just motoring, to obtain a conviction requires evidence which is legally obtained. If evidence which leads to a conviction is later found to illegally obtained then it would be unlikely to be allowed and would normally lead to the conviction being quashed.

Dave, I have never hidden my profession, I am a consultant in intellegent transport systems for the last 15 years and have been involved in the evaluation of a lot of vehicle detection systems and various other road side devices, no vested interest in the actual products, but in thier application to solve problems and get people moving :)

The requirement is the type approval. Pages 10 & 11 of the following say it better, but isn't much different from my post above :)

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.u...206?view=Binary

The prosecutions are always based on methods of beyond all reasonable doubt, so anything which can rise to doubt will always be explored to try and remove the consequences of the actions of breaking a speed limit. There are no denials of breaking the limit, just a wish to remove the consequence.

How does the driver not knowing the road particulary well have anything to do with deliberately hidden cameras ?

With only the top box section painted yellow, it is very easy to 'hide' a camera behind road furniture, with the

support shaft painted the same colour as road sign support poles......

Like I said, too many deliberately hidden cameras for fund raising.

What about the extra special ones several metres higher than the normal ones ?

(again with just the top box painted yellow)

Sorry but you won't convince me with that arguement they are not put there to revenue raise.

This is usualy why I dont join in these debates but here goes :)

If you know the road, then surely it stands that you will know there is a camera there? (excepting the obvious, yes I know the road, yes there is a camera on there, opps I forgot syndrome )

If you didnt know the road or were not observent enough to know there was a camera there, would you be happy to speed along it? What else hadn't you seen which may result in an accident?

Obvioulsy this is all just my view on life, how others decide to drive and make their decisions is up to them :)

[Jiberjaber]

I came across this just now and thought it apt :)

I'm in a decent relationship right now. It's been two months and there have been no really big arguments. She scratches my head nonstop, gives me awesome massages, and even brings me food when I'm too worn out from work to go anywhere.

Since moving out on my own, she gave me even better advice on how to do my laundry than my grandmother did.

Flashback:

"Okay Justin, here's what grandma does.."

She then bends over to separate the clothes, accidentally farts but doesn't notice it.

"First, you do what my school did when I was a little one. You separate the whites from the colored."

Thanks racist grandma.

I don't get to see my girflriend too much because I work so many hours a week that it's almost impossible. That, mixed with her schedule, doesn't make for much time to see her. When I do find time to see her, I fly from work to her house going 90 in a 55 MPH zone.

That being said, Monday I was speeding to her house from work. I was on a local highway and about 5 minutes from her house when the blue lights blinded my eyes from my rear-view mirror. Damn, I've just been pulled over.

The officer walked up to my car, asked how I was doing, then the usual "license and registration, please". Nothing out of the ordinary.

I carry a gun for my profession and still had it strapped to my side, so I showed him my work ID and gun permit BEFORE whipping out the gun and saying:

"Here's my gun! I'm allowed to carry one!"

Phew, won't do that one again.

After looking over the permit, he eyeballed my crotch.

"I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car, sir. Keep your hands where I can see them."

Either he's a gay cop, or he has a problem with the gun.

I was asked to put my hands on the roof of the car. He pulled my 357 out of its holder.

"I'm going to hold onto this while I run your license, if you don't mind. You can step back into the car."

I got in and shut my door.

"So, Mr. Justin, why were you driving so fast?"

At this moment, my bull**** dispenser started cranking. I could afford another ticket, but would rather not deal with an increased insurance rate. I started spitting a line of total BS.

"Well sir, my job doesn't allow me to see my fiance very much. Since this is the first time in forever that I'm going to see her, I'm rushing to her house to pop the question. I apologize for speeding, I'm just so excited to see the look on her face when I ask her to marry me."

"Do you have a ring?"

"No sir, can't afford one."

"Ah, poor kid."

"I know. Could you do me a favor and write me a ticket? I'd like to look back on this night and laugh about the time I was pulled over and given a ticket the night I was rushing to propose to my wife."

The reason I asked him this is to make my story seem to check out. I'm calling his bluff, if you will.

"Haha, you kids. I'll tell you what-- I'll do you one better. I'll escort you over there through traffic if you're in that much of a rush. Wouldn't that be more of a story?"

Damnit. The guy's caught up in making a Kodak moment when all I want to do is get him off my back and eat tacos with my girlfriend... NOT propose. I've only known the girl for two months-- not exactly ready for the big commitment yet.

"Yes sir, I do believe it would."

After giving him her street name and address, he knew exactly where to go. ****. I got in my car and followed him as his siren rang out. Traffic pulled to the side, peopled yielded at red lights, and cars stopped-- all so I could have tacos with my girlfriend.

After getting to her house, the officer stepped out of his car and knocked on her door. She opened it and stared at him, then me in a look of confusion.

"Hi, I pulled this gentleman over a few minutes ago because he was in a rush to get over here so fast. Justin? Would you like to take it from here?"

I looked at Courtney, then the officer, who wasn't going anywhere anytime soon. I tried to take her inside, but the officer stood right there in the doorway to witness the event. The things I'd do to get out of a ticket.

"Courtney... I know I've only known you a short time. But, in that short time <insert romantic bull****>... Will you marry me?"

She wouldn't say yes. She's younger than I am and always talked about how she wanted to date a guy forever until making a commitment.

''YES JUSTIN! I WILL MARRY YOU!"

The officer smiled and clapped as Courtney clamped her arms around my body. The neighbors, who had been wondering why a cop car with its lights on was outside her house cheered.

Courtney's parents called me and told me that they were proud that their daughter found such a nice guy.

Me? Well I got out of a ticket.

F*** you. I'm engaged.

[aido]

That's absolute genius :D

[Yeldarb]

There was a BBC2 show last Sunday exploring the benefits of a "gizmo" in the car to limit the speed of all cars to the speed limit, but with an over-ride button. There were very convincing arguments on both sides, for 30mph areas it would get my vote. But I don't want a box telling me how to drive.

I am embarrased to admit I did have BBC2 on the radio :o

BIG BROTHER

[aido]

But I don't want a box telling me how to drive.

That's why I'm single again

[dave1]

The requirement is the type approval. Pages 10 & 11 of the following say it better, but isn't much different from my post above :)

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.u...206?view=Binary

Obvioulsy this is all just my view on life, how others decide to drive and make their decisions is up to them :)

The above made very interesting reading, particularly pages 28 & 29, which refers to the method of obtaining type approval and seems to imply that each type of device needs to obtain it, not be covered by a "blanket approval".

As you say, we all have our own views. My original post was not meant to condone speeding or condemn it, merely to point out a newsworthy article which could have serious consequencies for government depending on the outcome.