I never forget a face but in your case I think I'll make an exception :)
I never forget a face but in your case I think I'll make an exception :)
Member since:31.08.2002
Reviews:151
Members who trust:151
Let me start my opinion by stating that I am employed in sales which requires me to drive many miles each week - usually around 2000 !! I have been driving since I was 17 (nine years) and I have never had any points on my licence or been involved in any accident. I consider myself an efficient driver, not faultless, but all the same experienced enough to have an opinion on the subject of speed cameras.
Let me also state that I am 100% in favour of speed cameras in areas which need protecting like schools and pedestrian crossings for instance. The use of speed cameras in these areas as well as accident blackspots undoubtedly cuts down driver speeds and in turn cuts down the amount of injuries, deaths and accidents. No one in their right mind can argue against this issue and Police and driving groups are quite right to employ speed cameras and continue to support them.
The most common types of speed cameras are;
FIXED SITE CAMERAS The fixed site Truvelo system takes a photograph of the front of a vehicle. Sensors located under the road surface detect the speed which then activates the camera and flash unit if the vehicle is exceeding the legal speed limit. Some of the housings can be turned around to face different times of the day.
AVERAGE SPEED CAMERAS Digital safety cameras, which measure vehicle speeds over a set distance were first installed in Northants and Leicestershire last year but are becoming increasingly common! The cameras read the number plate of every vehicle on entry to and exit from the speed managed zone. An average speed is recorded by calculating the time taken for the vehicle to travel the distance between the entry and exit cameras. If the vehicle is found to be exceeding the speed limit, the data, including a colour photograph of the vehicle, date, time and speed are stored. If the vehicle is not speeding, the information is discarded. The cameras are erected on tall blue poles in the central reservation with one over-hanging the carriageway and the other focusing on the opposite carriageway. The cameras do not flash and all the data is digitally
stored so there is no need for film.
RED LIGHT CAMERAS These were first installed this year but will become very common indeed in a short space of time in our towns and cities based at roundabouts and traffic lights. They are used to combat jumping red lights and have timers linked up to the lights !!
MOBILE SAFETY CAMERAS These are used by safety camera crews targeting areas linked to speeding. The enforcement officers use laser guns directed out of the back or the side of the vehicles to detect offending motorists. The vehicles are clearly marked "Safety Camera Team" and they park where they can be seen and have exemptions in certain locations like pavements, clearways and bus stops.
THE PENALTIES If you're caught speeding you are given three points on your licence plus a £60 fine. In extreme circumstances like dangerous driving for instance, court action could also be taken. Some Police forces give you the opportunity to escape the three point penalty by attending a "Speeding course" which also cost £60 - this is only if your offence has been deemed minor or accidental.
Beware, not all Police forces view speeding the same, for instance some forces allow a threshold of ten per cent - this would mean 33mph in a 30mph zone, whereas other forces allow 20 per cent - 36mph in a 30mph zone. On the other hand, some forces are tough on speeding and have a zero tolerance attitude to speeding in certain cases, so 31mph in a 30mph zone could bring you the same penalty already mentioned.
There are 26 million drivers in the United Kingdom and great pressure has been heaped on the Government and their policies on taxing drivers. Countless lobbies and petitions have popped up in the last ten years as the driving fraternity has become increasingly frustrated. Government clearly worried about upsetting such a large amount of people announced earlier this year, recommendations on speed cameras to its Police forces - note these were only recommendations and NOT mandates.
Some of the Police forces took the recommendations to heart and have implemented them like South Yorkshire and Devon which have painted all of their new cameras and some of the old cameras Dayglo orange which is much more visible to drivers. The sneaky positioning and disguised colour of the camera was always a major gripe of motorist.
However some forces have not painted their cameras at all and don't intend to, remember these were recommendations and not mandates. Some forces have painted there's blue - yes blue - oh that's so more visible than grey isn't it ?
Another iniative was to inform drivers where mobile units were operating on a daily basis by using local radio and the internet. Again some forces have done so but some forces refuse, stating it defeats the object of targeting speeding if they are informing the public where they are operating.
So why are some Police forces not embracing the changes recommended by the Government?
Easy the revenue that is raised by the fines is mostly put back into more speed cameras and speeding initiatives BUT some of the revenue goes to the Police forces directly!! The eight counties targeting speed by use of cameras have on average raised £10 million EACH by way of fines a year - this is not even counting the doubling of speed cameras figures over the next two years in those counties !! By being driver friendly and catching less motorists their income generated would DECREASE.
So it would seem that the use of speed cameras is in fact a revenue raiser first and an accident reducer second!! - that's how it seems to me and countless other thousands.
Let me point out again at this stage that I 100% back the use of Speed Cameras in areas that need protecting.
The Road Safety Lobby has stated "Speed is a factor in 6% of all traffic accidents", So in every 100 accidents only 6 have been caused by speed. I believe most accidents are caused by drivers driving too close to the vehicle in front - otherwise known as tailgating. Indeed more accidents are caused by pedestrians than speeding. How many times does a pedestrian walk out in the road without looking and gets hit and its the drivers fault - answer ALWAYS.
Does the fact that 6% of accidents should warrant so much time, effort, paperwork, money (£10 million by most forces) when other crime figures are increasing year on year?
The answer should be NO but the forces (and the Government who get their share too) get so much revenue from speed cameras that they would say yes and back up their distorted theories by twisting figures and manipulating trends to back them up - It's called PROPAGANDA.
For instance in London, a report stated that accidents reduced from 1997-1998 by 18% and this was because (without proof) of the use of speed cameras. At first glance, yes it looks so but if you delve deeper 1996 had fewer accidents when there were no speed cameras and 1999 had more than 1997 which totally defeats their argument. To take two random figures and completely put them down to speed cameras was a LIE!
In another instance Lancs Police stated in their yearly figures that 3000 people were killed or injured in incidents relating to speed. The true statistics were that just over twenty were killed and 350 injured in accidents involving speed. All of the other 2620 were victims of non-speeding accidents! These were words used carefully in order to back up their policy of increasing the amount of speed cameras on our roads.
A recent AA study stated that there were only 18 cameras on the most 50 dangerous roads in Britain whereas the M25 - one of the busiest but safest roads, in terms of numbers has 40 cameras alone on it !!
Speed cameras DO NOT stop people speeding, any driver will tell you the same. They only stop people speeding in the vicinity of the speed camera. This can be a positive thing in areas where the traffic does need to be slowed down but in areas where there is no danger at all, it is clearly just being used to raise revenue.
I read recently in my local paper that a speed camera was being removed because it wasn't catching anybody - it caught only three people in a month therefore wasn't useful or cost effective. How did they know that it hadn't prevented several accidents? They didn't !!
In Holland, all speed cameras are painted Dayglo orange which eased the consternation that the motorists over there were feeling while in Canada they totally scrapped their crackdown on drivers via the use of speed cameras because they alienated nearly the whole nation and eventually got voted out! If this Government is not careful, they could make the same mistake.
I often drive past Bedford Police headquarters and it enrages me when I see their fleet of mobile units driving out of the entrance (12 vans sometimes more !) to various sites around the county. The manpower and efforts by our Police forces in snaring speeding motorists is to be frank despicable.
I would estimate on current figures that only 1 in 10 speed cameras are being targeted at reducing accidents and that the other nine are revenue raisers.
Heres some of the recommendations I would bring in;
# Put speed limiters on cars like they exist already on heavy goods vehicles, I have seen schemes put forward where cars can be controlled by satellites but I feel that is too extreme.
# Target areas that NEED to be targeted, Schools, Built up areas, pedestrian crossings, villages, accident blackspots, crossroads - if people get caught in these cases then I have no sympathy. Abolish plans to put in speed cameras in any other area.
# Increase the amount of speedhumps which has proved to be the only method of controlling speed effectively - of course only if they are implemented safely which isn't always the case.
# Target peoples driving skills rather than cracking down on speeding like banning hands free mobile phones which distracts drivers and also making it an offence to tailgate - this could be enforced much the same way as speeding. Another way is to make driving courses freely available to the general public at a reasonable cost - this iniative would fund itself!
# I would rather see a doubling in the number of warning indicaters rather than cameras. In Cambridge and a handful of other areas signs light up 'Slow Down' rather than flash you and fine you. This is a great way to slow people down and once implemented wouldn't cost a penny to manage.
# More time being spent on educating pedestrians and their roles on keeping our roads accident free. They seem to be forgotten - when I was at School we had regular visits from the 'local bobby' but sadly a thing of the past.
# All speed cameras painted Dayglo orange making them more visible and effective and in the process ensuring drivers are not being sneakily targeted.
# Make all Police forces enforce the laws the SAME, the current state of affairs is inconsistent and unfair on both the motorist and the Police. Uniformity is what is required, we need to work together not to rub each other up the wrong way.
Finally
To the Government disCARd the current policies.
To the motorists drive CARefully.
Many thanks
=====
WormVision2002
How helpful would this review be to a person making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
I read somewhere (spain?) that based on your speed, the lights change to red if you are speeding but stay green if you are not. That makes more sense to me! Jo
hepialid 07.10.2002 20:22
Good opinion. All the cameras around here are still grey and hidden behind signs. Everyone knows where they are though and most people slow down before them. As an engineer, I have to say speed humps are more of a hinderance, than benefical. New methods include rumbled surfacing which is quiet under the car wheels, but is uncomfortable to drive over, unless you drive slowly that is. Also they offer less polution problems with cars braking and accelerating heavily between speed humps. Andy.
very helpful by (98%):
helpful by (2%):
