The Speed Camera Thread - Volume 45 - Dynamic Dave

***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 46 *****


For the continued discussion of all things pertaining to Speed Cameras.

This is Volume 45.

There is no need to repeat anything since earlier volumes will not be deleted. But then if we only posted original stuff the backroom would grind to a halt in a fortnight.

;o)

A list of previous volumes can be found here:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=18846
French Leave - Tim Allcott
Currently on holiday in the Carmargue/ Languedoc. Phenomenal number of mobile radar traps out, seeing at least one a day South of Montpellier. Just a "heads up" for anyone who might be travelling in the same area: are others finding the same thing elsewhere in France? Apologies for any delay in replying, access restricted until return

Tim
Tim{P}
French Leave - Xileno {P}
Yes the French are getting quite strict on speed now. Lots of speed traps on fast 'N' roads.
French Leave - mike hannon
Thanks TIm - I live here and I've never seen a mobile radar yet, but it must part of this year's campaign against holidaying motorists, which has apparently seen heavily loaded cars being wieghed at the roadside.
There are certainly many more fixed scameras around me now - in the SW. They seem to be multiplying by the week at the moment. I know the French government is hard up but this is ridiculous - there must be a fairer way to pay for pensions...
French Leave - pmh
Interesting, I am in the the Languedoc (entre Montpellier and Beziers) at the moment and only last night commented on how few police we had seen this year running roadside checks compared with last year!

No mobile radars either this year, whereas last year I spotted several locally over a 5 week period.

Which roads have you seen them on? Are they concentrating on the coastal strip?
--

pmh (was peter)


French Leave - Robbie
I've recently returned from France after spending three months at my holiday home in S W France. I only saw one speed trap near Domme in the Dordogne during the time I was there.

I noticed from the latest road map that there were more fixed cameras on the autoroutes and N roads, although there were no more on the route I took from Le Havre.
French Leave - mike hannon
I'm a bit concerned now - what does a French mobile speed camera actually look like?
French Leave - Mike-H
Me too, I've only ever seen the Gendarmes on motorbikes with a hand held, or fixed boxes like ours. I have noticed two of these fixed boxes between Rennes and Calais. I'm fairly sure one is near Avranches, wher you can see Mont St Michel on a clear day., but cannot remember the other.
French Leave - Armitage Shanks {p}
I don't know how up to date their database is but, if you plot a route on michelin.com, it tells you if there are any fixed speed cameras along it. I do not think that just looking at the map shows them as symbols on the roads.
French Leave - Robbie
I'm a bit concerned now - what does a French mobile
speed camera actually look like?


The speed camera will probably be peering out of the back of one of their vans so you are unlikely to be able to identify it.

The gendarmes usually hide in a lay-by or side road so it will be too late if you are speeding. Watch out for motorists in the opposite direction flashing their headlights as they will be warning you of an impending trap. This could be quite some distance from the trap so don't ignore them. Motorists were flashing me two or three miles away from the trap near Domme.
French Leave - Tim Allcott
One's I've seen have been on a tripod, and look like binoculars. Usually a van parked nearby with 3 Gendarmes staffing, but one was two motorcycles. Yes, near the coast; Aigues Mortes, Le Grau du Roi, so more likely locals rushing to the beach. Also saw a peleton of " Douannes" motorbikes; Mistral arrived now, and cooled the heatwave. Off topic entirely: went Scuba diving today in a Marseillan Calanque; first sea dive. Amazing!
Agree: French still likely to flash their headlights to warn, so if they do, check your speed.... They also (as in England) seem to be signing in advance of some, but not all, cameras. If you use "viamichelin" to get your route, it tells you, accurately, where fixed cameras are.
Tim{P}
French Leave - mike hannon
Yes, I've already fallen victim to the Gendarmes with the radar gun on the tripod (it's a long story...). But do they actually have speed traps on the move, as in the UK?
French Leave - jacks
The gendarmes usually hide in a lay-by or side road so
it will be too late if you are speeding. Watch
out for motorists in the opposite direction flashing their headlights as
they will be warning you of an impending trap. This
could be quite some distance from the trap so don't ignore
them. Motorists were flashing me two or three miles
away from the trap near Domme.


Good advice - I was in the Dordogne area 2 weeks ago and saw several speed traps but the locals were flashing to warn, as you say in one case I travelled a good couple of miles before I saw the police.
The ones on the Autoroutes tended to be operated by Gendarmes hiding in areas where they could conceal themselves in wooded ares adjacent to the hard shoulder.
Saw also 2 on the N roads but also one was in a small village - no police in sight but I just spotted a small box on a tripod (about 2 feet high) on the edge of the pavement with a long cable trailing along into the distance. The actual police car (local police in white car rather than the Gendarmes) was about 150 yards further on tucked back in a small side turning. Presumably if you speed pass the "box" it signals to plod in the car and they simply pull forward blocking the road and you must then stop.

Jacks
French Leave - Tim Allcott
and, yesterday, on the way out of Stes Maries de la Mer, Gendarmes carrying out apparently random Breath tests. Hmmmm. a new one for France?
Tim{P}
French Speed Camera - Armitage Shanks {p}
Here is a link to a photo of one sort of French speed camera, fixed presumably.

www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/photo6.htm

Yellow vultures to return to the city - henry k
London city of course

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4796593.stm

Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Nsar
The ones that face you that look like a Gatso at ground level.

Just academic interest you understand!
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - GenevaJohn
Yes, in my experience, definately.

Unless you're unlucky enough to come across a speed trap with gendarmes and the old fashioned speed-gun, in which case you'll be flagged down on the spot (or by a police motorbike behind you). Either way, you should always know about it at the time.

I don't know if they can get English registered cars these days

It used to be the case that if the limit was 130 kilometres per hour, they (the gendarmes) wouldn't do anyone doing less than 140 (evidenced by the local newspapers where offences are listed, and I've never seen anyone 'done' doing less than 140 ) but I've heard anecdotally that tolerances are much tighter with the fixed cameras .
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - mike hannon
Yes. Do a forum search for earlier mentions.
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Nsar
Thanks for your replies - I was pretty sure I was within limits whenever I encountered one, but didn't want an unwelcome souvenir of my hols.

Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - smokie
"Do French Speed Cameras Flash?"

Can I be first with the smartass answer?



Only if you're speeding... and if you were, quite frankly I'm surprised that you are alive to ask the question... ;-)

Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Altea Ego
Yes they do, in your face as well. The French have a really nice piccy of me with a suprised look on my face


"and if you were, quite frankly I'm surprised that you are alive to ask the question"

Pardonez mois?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - smokie
TVM - as a regular here, surely you know that Speed Kills by now??? :-)
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Altea Ego
Not in France, only the UK,.

where is now wheels anyway?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Lud
Yes, I've been missing her too.

Come back and scold us, NW!
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - NowWheels
where is now wheels anyway?


She's been off on the road, far too much, marvelling at how Irish roads are now generally much better than English ones, enjoying the 120kmh limit on the western side of the Sellafield output pipe, and cursing the tendency of UK motorways to have overturned lorries causing 500-mile tailbacks.
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Adam {P}
Now all we need it Patently and it'll be like the good old days.
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - drbe
, marvelling at
how Irish roads are now generally much better than English ones,


Because the English paid for them that's why!
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Dynamic Dave
surely you know that Speed Kills by now??? :-)


I thought it was the crashing bit that did that?
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Avant
Not speed by iteslf - tailgating is the problem. And then crashing.
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Reggie
I got flashed by one not far from Bologne a week ago, or at least I think I did. Something caught my eye and caused me to look over to where a gastso looking camera was at ground level. I wondered why the Renault that was keeping pace with me suddenly dropped back, and then caught me up!

Fortunately I was on my motorbike, and so hopefully there isn't a repeater flash as you leave the camera, and if not they will not have my registration number...................I hope?

I used a lot of D roads whilst I was there, and they were pure bliss in the main. I would say that they D roads are often quieter than our roads are in the early hours of the morning! Mile after mile of pleasure.

Reggie
Do French Speed Cameras Flash? - Glaikit Wee Scunner {P}
Got flashed by one near Bologne a few weeks ago when doing 135kph in a 130 limit.
I await the letter from France.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
No New Cameras on M25 - TheGrocer
Question:
The new overhead M25 gantries from the M3 Jct 12 to the M4 Jct 15 have NOT had speed cameras fitted since the section was widened and improved.... so why not?

Is it a change in the highways agency and governmental policy to reduce the hacked off factor from the millions who use the M25 every day?

Are they hoping that no one will notice that the cameras havent been installed and will continue to react to the gantry signage which is working? The other gantry signs (Jct 10 to 15) and cameras are working as I see them flash regularly (not at me I hasten to add)

Anyone give a heads up as to whats goinmg on...will they ever be installed What do you think?

PS I have noticed that they are now using the mobile number plate recognition cameras on the bridges just before Clacketts Lane at Jct5 with patrol cars waiting on the layby 1 mile from Clacketts ready to pounce!
--
\" Keep doing the same old thing, youll get the same old thing, try something different today!\"
No New Cameras on M25 - Altea Ego
I understand that the original intention was to upgrade the entire section (old and new gantries) to a real time specs system.

Someone probably pointed out to them that the whole thing does not work anyway as its a car park by the time they put the speed limits on.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
No New Cameras on M25 - tr7v8
ANPR been regular visits to Clacketts since they started using it, normally causes complete chaos beause of the muppets slowing down & looking!
No New Cameras on M25 - boxsterboy
Yes, I've notice since my last update that my Origin B2 no longer warns me of speed cameras on the western section of the M25, even though there are road markings.

Not sure who to believe!
No New Cameras on M25 - TheGrocer
I have the Origin Blue i 2 and you are right its not on their database as they have not been fitted!!
Just wondered if they are planning to put them up or whether we can all ignore them (whilst keeping to the speed limit of course!)
Speed camera - kate41
My friend was driving my car whilst I was the passenger. She was flashed by a GATSO and I inevitably received the Notice of Intended Prosecution. I know there is some case law ongoing at the moment which affects the owner of the car having to implicate the driver. Does anybody know anythng about this who can update me? I have until Monday to send the NIP back.
Speed camera - adverse camber
best advice on this topic is at pepipoo - daft name, good advice.

www.pepipoo.com/

be careful. Was 'your friend' properly insured on your vehicle ?
Speed camera - kate41
I am fully comp so she would be third party insured. I will look up that website thanks.
Speed camera - Gromit {P}
I am fully comp so she would be third party insured.


Are you sure?

Check your policy carefully: you may be insured to drive other cars on a third-party basis, but your friend is not insured to drive your car unless a) she has a similar comprehensive policy b) she is a named driver on your policy or c) you have an open policy (and then she's only covered if she has a full, clean licence and is within the age limits specified by the insurer.

PS: "Driving other cars" extensions are subject to much debate in the insurance industry - do a forum search if its likely to be an issue for you.
Speed camera - Tim Allcott
Kate, NO! Your insurance will only cover her if your insurance says "any driver". Your insurance covers YOU to drive other cars, not necessarily others to drive yours, unless it says so.
Tim{P}
Speed camera - kate41
I will have to check it out with her. Thanks for the advice
Speed camera - Dwight Van Driver
Following an alleged speeding offence detected by camera the SCP are obliged to send to the Registered Keeper or the driver when details are known a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

Because the details of the driver are unknown then also included is a request by or on behalf of Chief of Police under Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 for the Reg Keeper to name the driver and return the form in 28 days. Failure to do so so is an offence punishable by fine and points.

The poster is in the position that he knows who the driver was so cannot claim a defence of not knowing who the driver was.

Following receipt of the name and shame, similar will be sent to the named driver to complete and return after which a Conditional Offer may be made - pay £60/3 points.

As posts above mention could well be an offence of using without Insurance, not only by driver but also passenger/owner.

It may well be that following the paper trail from the start SCP may not delve into the Insurance aspect and only concentrate on the speed offence.

dvd
Cameras and right to silence - Statistical outlier
Seems that speed cameras are being challenged again, this time over breach of the right to silence.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm
Cameras and right to silence - mss1tw
"Jools Townsend from the Brake charity, who supports speed cameras, said if the pair won their case it would have a "devastating effect" on road safety in the country."

No, it wouldn't, that's the thing. Good god what planet are these retards from?
Cameras and right to silence - drbe
>>
No, it wouldn't, that's the thing. Good god what planet are
these retards from?

>>

No, I don't think it's a question of whether they are retards from another planet.

It is a difference of opinion. They are entitled to hold a different opinion from that which you hold. They may be right in their opinion, you may be right in the opinion which you hold - I suggest it is more likely that the truth lies somewhere between the two diametrically opposed points of view.

Calling a group of people who hold a different opinion from yours "retards", is, may I respectfully suggest, not the best way to conduct an intelligent debate.
Cameras and right to silence - cheddar
The link between cameras and safety is tenuous to say the least however there are a minority of camera sites where they are of benefit. Therefore if it were ruled that camera procecutions were unsafe then it would be detrimental to the safety of some roads outside schools etc, furthermore potentaily tens of thousands of convicted motorists could have their convictions overturned, rightly so if done for 45 in a 40 on a clear dual c/way though many would clearly have been blatantly and dangerously speeding in totaly inappropriate circumstances and would be off the hook.

If this were to happen then a new deterant to dangerous and excessive speed in school / residential areas would have to be introduced quickly.

On the otherhand if it were to re focus the enforcment resources away from the 45 mph on a 40 limit dual c/way 1/1000 sec snapshot in time towards unsafe vehicles, drugged and drunk drivers, and the uninsured and RFL evaders then it would certainly be a good thing.
Cameras and right to silence - M.M
Ah the old hands here will remember Idris..... April 2002 and it seems like only yesterday.

Use forum search to see what he was up to last time.

Cameras and right to silence - jc2
The whole argument is that under traditional English law,you cannot be required to incriminate yourself.
Cameras and right to silence - drbe
The whole argument is that under traditional English law,you cannot be
required to incriminate yourself.

>>

Is it a subtle distinction to argue that ' you are not being required to incriminate yourself; you are being asked to state who was driving a given vehicle at a given time'?

Cameras and right to silence - cheddar
Is it a subtle distinction to argue that ' you are
not being required to incriminate yourself; you are being asked to
state who was driving a given vehicle at a given time'?


I think the basis of the argument is that if you are the owner of the vehicle to say, "the wife" or "my son" is ok though if it WAS you that was driving you have the right to silence therefore if you dont name another party as the driver you have by default incriminted yourself.

(There are exceptions, i.e. if you have left your car in the hands of a garage and they have been caught on a cameras when testing it, you can i guess rightfully say "dont know".)
Cameras and right to silence - Westpig
i for one would welcome a damned great hole in the 'safety' camera usage.......

they are mostly ineffective......... because......... they do not differentiate (speed alone versus inappropriate speed for the circumstances and/or poor driving) and are set at the lowest common denominator i.e. the speed at which the worst possible scenario has been calculated..... which irritates when that worst case scenario is not so, which is a fair amount of the time.

furthermore, plenty of people are concentrating on the wrong things when they drive through a camera i.e speedo and not the road ahead or the person behind when they brake fiercely because they're unsure of the limit, but the camera frightens them.

then there's the cameras sited in straight safe bits of road, where an overtake could be achieved relatively safely, which obviouslty means people don't........... but who will then overtake where it isn't as safe

then consider the vast amount of people who don't register their vehicles etc...which ends up with Mr Decent Law Abiding copping all the grief, for an often minor transgression, whilst the unsafe, no documents oik gets away scot free

we'd be far better off with an increase in propelry trained traffic officers who could deal with all aspects of traffic inc speeding...but more importantly could also deal with unsafe vehicles, unlawful vehicles and unlawful drivers

but of course the camera taxation system would have been stopped and traffic cops are expensive.... so the bottom line is money.......... which is frankly appalling when you consider how important the subject matter is (i.e decent road safety and proper civil liberties)

end of rant, but i feel better
Cameras and right to silence - Adam {P}
I was watching something called Road Wars on Sky the other night. It's essentially an hour of mostly Brit cop chases - top program.

Anyway, I had to laugh - they were chasing this car and it was going for it - wrong way round roundabouts, wrong side of the road, 80mph in 30 limits and from the police car camera, you could see a speed camera on the side of the road and JUST as the perp's car passed it, it smashed into the central bollards and went onto the wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic.

Yeah - real safe.
Cameras and right to silence - madf
westpig said "and are set at the lowest common denominator i.e. the speed at which the worst possible scenario has been calculated..... which irritates when that worst case scenario is not so, which is a fair amount of the time.
"

So you are arguing doing 40mph in a 30mph limit is not illegal?

I can see the arguments for more traffic police and I agree.. but most arguments against speed cameras seem to me be an attempt to drive at whatever speed the writer likes, irrespective of the speed limit.

So my argument is: keep to speed limits and then argue for more Traffic police.

Given the huge fines paid each year for speeding it would appear much of the driving polpolace break speed limits routinely.

Given that, they deserve all they get.

I speak as a driver.... and as a pedestrian almost mown down yesterday by a car doing at least 40mph in a 30mph limit passing me at a pedestrian crossing and of course not stopping. These people deserve every fine they can get:-)



madf
Cameras and right to silence - Adam {P}
So if he'd have nearly mown you down at 30 and not stopped for the crossing, that would have been ok?
Cameras and right to silence - Statistical outlier
no, but remove the nearly from that question, and at least you'd probably survive it at 30.
Cameras and right to silence - Adam {P}
I suppose.
Cameras and right to silence - R75
And if he was doing 20 you could remove the "Probably" from that sentence, so why don't we all drive at 20 in built up areas - more to the point why are all roads with schools on not 20 or 15 limits?
Cameras and right to silence - Statistical outlier
Unless I've got a good line of sight, I do drive at 20 (or less) in built up residential areas where people might emerge from behind cars or other obstructions.

It's cost versus return - a blanket 20 limit would be a pain in the backside, unnecessary most of the time, and would be hard to enfore or would cause huge resentment. On the other hand, a 20 limit, rigourously enforced during school hours, around schools would seem to make sense to me.
Cameras and right to silence - Westpig
what i'm saying is that the speed limit is set, in the first place, at a limit that for whatever safety considerations have been thought of..........but those safety considerations would not be relevant for 24 hrs a day or 365 days a year. They would be a lowest common denominator i.e at the most dangerous time of the day or for the most dangerous type of weather, time of year etc,etc.

so for example the kids going in/out of a school could be the most dangerous type of thing in that road, but at other times in wouldn't be so

or... if pouring with rain or in the winter was a worry, it wouldn't be if bone dry or in the summer


therefore if you drove past a school at 38 mph at 0845 hours on Dec 1st (week day) in a rain storm, i'd expect a patrol car to book you and you'd thoroughly deserve it, because it would be dangerous....... however, if you did the same thing on June 21st (sun morn) at 0500 with bright sunshine........what's wrong with some discretion and common sense and let you get on with it or at worst some words of advice, because there would be minimal danger.

the camera would not differentiate........ a traffic cop could and in my opinion should
Cameras and right to silence - artful dodger {P}
The arguement they are using in this challenge is in my opinion valid, however whether it will succeed is open to question.

If they win it will mean that any speed camera which photographs the car and does not show the driver will be unlawful. Also virtually all drivers caught by these cameras will be able to challenge any fines and points they have received. Clearing their name might have further ramifications like when insurance companies have raised premiums or worse still when someone has lost either their licence or job.

Personally I feel that a clever fudged answer will be given vindicating their arguement but will only apply to anyone who physically challenged the speeding charge and refused to name the driver. This would mean all existing speeding fines, points etc. will stand.

The final point I would like to make is that all drivers feel that a minor speeding error is being treated too harshly by speed cameras. The annoyance of being caught on camera when in reality they feel they have done nothing really criminal and dangerous shows how low our nanny state is reaching. We have far more cars on the road today than 5 years ago, which was more that 10 years ago, which was more than 20 years ago, etc. but road deaths have not climbed in proportion. This is despite faster cars and road improvements, and overall the speed of most traffic is now slower than at any time in the past 50 years - partly due to speed cameras, but mainly due to congestion.




--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
Cameras and right to silence - mjm
His case, if I remember correctly is not for or against speed cameras. It is about the right not to admit to the offence, ie the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The form (172?) which requires the owner of the car to give the driver details is more or less used as a confession of guilt. It is illegal not to supply those details. In effect, this becomes a confession obtained under duress or fear of prosecution. He is arguing that this is a breach of his human rights. If we ignore that the "crime" is breaking the posted speed limit, and substitute it with burglary/GBH/etc then his argument becomes clearer. The courts are full of people who have pleaded not guilty, whether they are or not. It is then up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

Without the form (172?) the only evidence against a speeding driver is a photograph, usually of the back the car. It basically means nothing unless the car has a distinguishing mark, not a numberplate, taking a few into court to prove their availability would kill that one.

Cameras and right to silence - madf
"The annoyance of being caught on camera when in reality they feel they have done nothing really criminal and dangerous shows how low our nanny state is reaching"

The law says 30 mph. So 33mph is criminal.

If you accept the illogicality of the above argument, then presumably stealing £10 is legal cos it is not a lot of money.
And beating up someone is "not really criminal" if they don;'t have to go to hospital. Or fiddling your taxes..etc..

Obeying speeding laws is NOT nannystatism. It is because of thinking like that there are speed cameras:-((


madf
Cameras and right to silence - Westpig

stealing is always stealing, whether it is 1p or £1,000

however 1 mph is not and will never be an offence...... there will be a sliding scale at some point that will kick in, having regard to all the risks...

and that is the problem..... at times, in fact a lot of the time, that level is too low, so often people are tempted to ignore it...

there are times though when that set level is too high.... so an experienced and prudent driver will adjust accordingly and slow down, the ignorant or selfish, will of course do no such thing.........the only problem is that the safe and careful driver is not allowed to adjust his speed upwards when it is safe and prudent to do so, because the limit is set so low....or half way out of the town as is common now, instead of when you get to it

the limits are set for rain, school kids twice a day, poor driving, poor vehicle maintenance etc,etc, not the sunny day at 5am , in a well maintained car when the kids are in bed etc,etc

in other words life is variable, the speed limits aren't
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Jonathan {p}
tinyurl.com/z2noc


Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - glowplug
Maybe so but it generates loads of cash!
---
Xantia HDi.

Buy a Citroen and get to know the local GSF staff better...
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - cheddar
Well blow me down .........
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - peterb
This appears to me to be yet another misinterpretation of statistics story. It comes down to the difference between speed being a "cause of" and "a factor in" accidents.

Whilst the anti-speeding lobby often overplays its hand, the other side is now doing the same!
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Pica
I find it incredible that the public on the whole are happy to drive down a road approaching a white van with a sinister dark figure sitting in the back pointing a gun at you!

Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Stuartli
The last official similar police analysis revealed that only seven per cent of accidents were purely involved with speed - this seems to indicate that the figure is dropping.

But I doubt whether it has all that much to do with speed cameras as some have already pointed out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Collos25
You cannot stop a growth industry especially when its run by a unelected unaswerable quango,if there was zero accidents and cars would only do 10mph we would still have more people working in their offices to produce all the useless reports everbody does not want.
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Adam {P}
A quick question.

When all this speed related accidents stop (all 4 of them), what are the Police going to do about the huge number of accidents caused by other factors?
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Westpig
absolutely nothing Adam........unless......... theyr'e not told to concentrate on other priorities to the detriment of traffic matters....... which is what it is all about at the moment

i.e too much central interference and possibly funding issues (but most people would argue they could do with more funding & tax payer's money must be finite)
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Lud
So speeding is safe, it's official.

On the other hand cameras are dangerous. They distract drivers and the more nervous ones often brake suddenly on noticing them, causing I am sure many accidents some of which must be fatal.

When are these ghastly things going to be taken away, along with speed bumps, road-narrowings at junctions and all the other moronic carp that's been inflicted on us in recent years?

Set motor vehicles free!
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Peter
This has probably no bearing on the subject in hand but I came across a September 1964 copy of the Bristol Evening Post. The article stated that in the first six months of 1964 7,221 people had been killed on the roads of West Germany.
I do not know the current state of affairs but I would like to think that modern cars and technology including speed cameras will have reduced this dreadful total.
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Honestjohn
For immediate release: 29th September 2006

MOTORISTS THINK SPEED CAMERAS ENCOURAGE MORE ERRATIC DRIVING

As government figures released today show only one in 20 collisions
last year was caused by a driver breaking the speed limit, a report
reveals over half (54%) of drivers think speed cameras encourage
people to drive more erratically . This is the staggering finding of
'Speed cameras and speeding drivers', a comprehensive report
published by swiftcover.com, the UK's only 100% online motor
insurer*.

Other key findings from the report reveal:

* 58% don't believe speed cameras increase safe driving
* Almost three quarters (71%) think that speed cameras make
motorists less aware of hazards on the road, increasing their risk
of causing accidents whilst their attention is diverted
* Less than one in eight (13%) Brits think speed cameras are the
safest way to reduce speeding
* Two thirds (66%) believe speed cameras are mainly used as a
revenue generating opportunity
* And seven in ten drivers (71%) are focusing more on the speed
camera than on the road ahead
* Almost half (44%) believe that speed cameras should not be used to
generate money at all
* Total fines from cameras exceed £114million every year
* Speed cameras could lead to an increase in motor insurance
premiums of £36 million** each year

"It is clear from our research that speed cameras have emerged as
the scourge of the 21st century motorist. People are fed up with the
imposition of speed cameras on every corner but, more importantly,
believe that they are failing to fulfil their key objective of
improving road safety."

"Equally, motorists feel that the huge amount of revenue generated
from these cameras - estimated at £114million each year - could be
put to far better use than simply paying for more and more cameras."

"Britain's drivers are not only frustrated by the ineffective use of
the cameras - many are hit in the pocket with a fine for speeding,
and could face increased insurance premiums, when they believed that
they were driving safely for the prevailing conditions at the time.
Our experience shows that drivers with one speeding conviction are
just as safe as those with none, so swiftcover.com does not charge
extra for those unfortunate enough to have been caught by a speed
camera just once"

Andrew Blowers, Chief Executive at www.swiftcover.com

HJ
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Waino
Errr..... if only 5% of accidents now involve speeding - doesn't it mean that speed limits/cameras are working?
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - nortones2
These latest comments appear to be from people who do not trouble to read the report. The police "investigation", particularly of collisions, is hampered by the fact in most cases they have not seen the incident, and have no way of telling the speed of the vehicles involved. What they report is based on the evidence they have at the time of reporting. Therefore, on this aspect alone, the tick-box report cannot be an accurate summary of the events. Further, there are several other categories where speed is relevant, but "loss of control" a factor in 35% of fatal accidents, is a separate category from excessive speed. Along with other material which might be relevant, post facto, such as following too close and sudden braking, this indicates that speed has a significantly greater relevance as a factor than the headline output.
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Thommo
So Nortones your arguement is basically that we can not PROVE that speeding is a trivial factor in road accidents and it COULD be a major factor so we should festoon the roads with cameras just in case.

I believe that pigeons COULD be the major factor so every police force should have falconry squads to eradicate the pigeons and make our roads safe.

My arguement is as least as valid and supported by the facts as yours.
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - nortones2
If the speed apologists want to persuade the Government that speed has no bearing on accidents, they will have to try a lot harder.
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Lud
What a load of carp nortones.

Do you imagine anyone can convince any government of anything? Not easy, that. Fortunately though they have other stuff on their plates, governments. Don't much care about this trivial stuff. Nor should they.

Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - madf
Nortones said " The police "investigation", particularly of collisions, is hampered by the fact in most cases they have not seen the incident, and have no way of telling the speed of the vehicles involved. What they report is based on the evidence they have at the time of reporting. Therefore, on this aspect alone, the tick-box report cannot be an accurate summary of the events"

In other words, the police investigation is a load of carp.

I.e government staistics of causes of collisions are meaningless.

on that basis we can draw NO conclusions: except that the causes of accidents are made up!:-)

So any suggestion that speed is or is not a cause of an accident in most cases is menaingless..

Therefore I conclude nortones ' conclusions - if the quotation above is to believed.- are meaningless as well.
QED.
madf
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - nortones2
It is indeed a statistical exercise, and of little use in determining whether or not speed cameras or indeed speed limits work. But it wasn't intended to do that. To test whether speed cameras are effective there would have to be a number of sites studied, and compared with controls. Of course, there are such studies: www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/camera_giff...2
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Westpig
nortones,

have you looked at safespeed.org?...........if not have a look
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Honestjohn
(Some unpleasantries removed from this thread.)

HJ
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - nortones2
Some, but not all, HJ!
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Lud
Nortones, I didn't mean to be offensive. Just get hot under the collar about anti-speed arguments, and don't always consider every word with the care I might.

Don't take casual badinage to heart. It isn't meant to hurt.
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - nortones2
Lud: taken in the same spirit!
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Westpig
Boring.........i like a good spat
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - Westpig
Nortones,

have you had a sneaky look at safespeed.org yet?
Only 5% of Crashes Caused by Speeding - madf
Well if speed cameras are only sited where people have been killed and they reduce road deaths by the huge percentages quoted: 40 to 60% how come road death figures have not reduced by the same %s if speed is such a key factor...?



"3,508 people were killed on Britain?s roads in 2003,"
"In 2004 3,221 people died as a result of road traffic crashes."
" 3,201 people were killed on Britain's roads in 2005, "

(all figures from Online Staistics from ONS)


After all, one would expect deaths to be falling at significantly higher rates as according to the propaganda:
cameras are targeted at worst places.
and they are hugely effective.

Staistics say otherwise OR there is a HUGE increase in another form of deaths...



madf
Civilians not Police manning speed traps - Jonathan {p}
Civilians not Police now manning speed camera traps

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/224/224705_...l
Civilians not Police manning speed traps - Adam {P}
So technically, you could accidentally park in front of the camera and not be committing any offence?

I like the sound of it!
Civilians not Police manning speed traps - artful dodger {P}
"Drivesafe, the partnership of police, courts and councils which operates speed cameras in the region, says the change frees up 20 officers to perform other duties, is cost-effective and helps reduce speeds and save lives.
Under the change, traffic wardens and camera technicians are responsible for maintaining and using speed cameras in the county, including mobile laser cameras. "


What worries me is the traffic wardens getting really zealous with their new powers.




--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
Civilians not Police manning speed traps - Westpig
should be a laugh at court if anyone contests anything.........the civilian staff will not be at all used to court appearances and have probably never been.......so would not necessarily make very good witnesses as they'd be expected to know what they're about, but in reality might not and would be nervous etc
 

Ask Honest John

Value my car