Do you want a speed camera in your street? Would it make you feel safer?
The government say they slow drivers down, cut accidents and help enforce the law.
The AA says seven out of 10 of us accept them as one way of trying to prevent accidents.
But some drivers aren’t convinced. Campaigners, such as the anti-camera group Safe Speed, say they cost too much, their benefits are hyped and they breach human rights.
Retired company director Idris Francis has lost his final appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to scrap speed camera laws.
He calls it a “black day for freedom and justice”, while the Department for Transport says the ruling upholds traffic laws that protect us all.
What do you think? Please add your comments below.
Trackback
20 comments so far
In the days before idiots like Dickie Brunstrom were promoted above their abilities, one might see a small report in one’s local paper regarding someone incurring a fine for speeding, having been followed by an unmarked police car at an average speed ov x mph over a distance of three-eighths of a mile. You cannot argue that you were unaware that you were exceeding the speed limit when we’re talking about a distance of 660 yards. But there again, that’s far too fair and doesn’t bring in the shekels.
- Posted by Dafydd ThomasThe English judicial system is based on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. Courts should not be able to convict individuals without photographic evidence of that individual committing an offence. Rear facing cameras and averaging cameras do not provide adequate evidence for a conviction in my opinion.
- Posted by AdrianSpeed cameras are cash scam. They are dependent upon a steady stream of violations to be profitable. Most of their violations are not people driving unsafe but driving safely within the 85% speed. Even the UK own statistics as can be found on Safespeeds and The Association of British Drivers http://www.abd.org.uk/road_fatalities.ht m show that they don’t work! 100% speed limit compliance doesn’t translate into safety. You are ignoring the fact that it is going to fast for conditions that kill, that is a driver training issue especially since most speed related accidents occur below the speed limit! This needs to be banned!
- Posted by Stephen DonaldsonThis was doomed to fail - the overwhelming reason for cameras is to make money and subsidise the police and road safety teams.
- Posted by PhilIf it was not about money then what about 10 penalty points for each offence and a £10 fine. That would do it but it wouldn’t raise money.
At the moment the authorities don’t care who was driving as long as they get £60 and someones driving licence.
The judges will only let proper criminals off - no motorists!
The problem is that speed cameras seem to be the be all and end all of Road Safety Policy, when in fact the emphasis should be on encouraging drivers to keep focused and pay attention when driving. Speeding is just one example of not paying attention. Unfortunately it brings in a lot of money, c£120m last year. Hence the policy isn’t developed further.
- Posted by ChippyComments about not being able to convict without photographic evidence are idiotic0 (Stephen Donaldson. What about other crimes such as rape, murder etc. If photographic evidence were required for all offences there would be no convictions of any offences. Grow up and face the consequences of irresponsible behaviour.
- Posted by Gordon YoungIn my village the “mobile safety cameras” are placed where they gain most revenue, if saving lives was the issue, then they would be placed a mile and a half up the road, where on average one person is killed a year. Those caught most would appear to be middle aged drivers with accident free driving records who happen to be a few miles over the speed limit and who readily pay up and have their licences endorsed with little fuss.
- Posted by Simon DowningThe police are alienating the very section of society that they should be able to count on most for support & help.
I’d say, given their apparent lack of effect, they are now primarily used as a stealth tax. They might once have had an effect, but now they are everywhere and the effect is diluted so far as to be unnoticeable.
Personally, I find those LED light up speed limit signs to be more effective at slowing me down.
- Posted by Dave TCan’t see what the problem is. It appeared to me the last time I was in the U.K., that due to congestion, most traffic couldn’t even reach the speed limit let alone break it!!!
- Posted by John DavisonSpeed cameras are now in general disrepute with the result that in some areas around a quarter of all cars on the road are not correctly registered or have false plates in order to avoid the financial penaties.
- Posted by AlanLocal drivers know where the cameras are and drive past them at less than the limit.
Those caught are in the main visiting an area and are quite properly studying the road in order to drive safely and are not looking into the trees for hidden cameras!
Tho whole nonsense needs replacing by trained and equipped “police” of some kind who can deal with drunk, dangerous, uninsured etc drivers and be readily available to provide support following an accident or when help might be needed (e.g. the lone female awaiting a breakdown truck).
There has to be a change when a growing percentage of the driving population holds the current system in such low regard.
I think there is no doubt that these cameras are about raising money rather than improving road safety. (In fact I think the way they encourage sharp braking makes things even more dangerous). what I object too is the fact that the authorities feel the need to justify them on safety grounds and therefore hand over the penalty points - they should admit they are just a tax game and if you get caught tough luck - you pay up - but don’t give many otherwise safe drivers points just to justify this money grabbing scheme!!
- Posted by Carl JonesI salute the gentlemen who fought so gallantly trying to defend us from the ever growing police state.
I was coerced into coughing up £60 for an ‘offence’ I was sure I had not committed simply because the cost of defending myself was out of all proportion to surrendering to state extortion.
The machine was placed in a van on top of a motorway bridge at the foot of a very steep hill. Yes, cynical and opportunistic in my view, but no doubt harvesting a fortune from the people who pay their wages.
The pivoting laser is mounted on top of a bridge of unknown height, measuring across a plane quite different from the one the vehicle is travelling in.
Asked to explain how the machine can thus calculate the velocity of a vehicle at a range of 600m the police responded with a lot of stuff about cosines and other gibberish hoping to fob off enquiries.
When asked for the data to support this, the police refuse to supply the information claiming it is copyright; the Prosecution Service say they don’t have it.
The police say they used the machine according to the manufacturer’s directions yet their ‘explanation’ of how the machine works is mathematically impossible. They say the machine takes two readings, calculates the cosines of each and deducts one from the other.
When I pointed out that unless the laws of physics were different in Scotland, it was impossible to calculate a cosine without first knowing the angles and without at least one right angle being present.
The police then said they were not competent to enter into a technical discussion.(despite them being the ones to initiate the nonsense about cosines.)
Anyone have access to the technical data of the LTi -2020 ?
I would be curious as to how many people like me were coerced into paying up simply because there is no economic or practical alternative.
- Posted by VinceGordon,
First of all you mixed me up with Adrian above my name. My commments started with “Speed cameras are cash scam.”
Second, if you want to name call I won’t bring myself down to your level. I have been driving for over two decades. If the act of speeding was so dangeours, why I am still alive! Luck?There is more to safety than speed limit compliance.
Less than 5% of all accidents occur above the speed limit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht ml?xml=/news/2006/09/29/ublview29.xml by the governments own admission.
No one has the right to drive unsafe. But speed cameras are not about going after people driving unsafe. There are about harvesting violations that have less to do with unsafe driving and just driving at a safe speed for conditions!
Steve Donaldson
- Posted by Stephen DonaldsonThe problem is that the speed limits are now based on unscientific local perception and literally plucked from the air by some unqualified factotum and on that basis we are criminalising people? Cameras only detect people driving above this unscientific number and that cannot cause accidents. Driving too fast does but cameras cannot spot that. They are meant to deter the extreme cases but because limits are too low, thousands, who are not too fast or dangerous, are being criminalised wrongly. Raise the limits in line with the reasonable driver which was the 85% rule that was applied for most of the 1900 and recently dropped.
Keith Peat ABD
- Posted by Keith PeatIf a serious crime was committed and a witness reported your registration and car make and color, the police would would have to prove in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt that the crime given the evidence was committed by you.
- Posted by Paul GibbonsThis is clearly not the case with speed cameras unless of course a picture of you driving said vehicle is produced, you have to form the backbone of the case by ‘admitting it’ on a form sent from information from an agency (DVLA) that according to the Police themselves can no longer be relied upon. The best place in my opinion for these unwanted brown envelopes is in the bin. (The paper recycling bin of course, you wouldn’t want a fixed
penalty notice from the local authority now would you !)
A £60 fine plus 3 points for speeding may garner revenue in the short term but more often than not the penalty is disproportionate to the crime (usually minor speeding transgressions)Thousands of people are seen to committ far more serious traffic crimes each day (such as jumping red lights, tail gaiting Etc) and get away with it.If the system continues and justice is not seen to be done the public will build up huge resentments towards the police with a consequent break down in law and order.
- Posted by Kevin SavillTravelling on a dual carriageway covered by average speed cameras I observed five other vehicles,on both carriageways,.
- Posted by H.J.HartleyFrom that time on I regard the police as enemy No 1. We are regularly requested to assist them ?
Simon Downing June 29th.
You make a telling point about the locations.
Along a stretch of dual carriageway of several miles I’ve become familiar with, a mobile camera unit regularly operates from overbridges.
They are always evident on the portion of the DC built to motorway standards; this is well engineered, with slip roads, hard shoulders, 3 broad lanes, a few very gradual bends etc etc.
Never are they to be seen along the older DC with 2 lanes, tighter bends and a few hazards thrown in like a petrol station with very short access lanes, roundabouts, laybys, T-junctions….yet ample overbridges too.
Now why is that ?
Furthermore, the penalty point system is rigidly applied. I am not aware of any mitigation process. It is mechanical; judgement is suspended.
Driving up to 1,000 miles a week I get plenty of opportunity to see bad drivers driving in a plethora of various ways clearly dangerous to other road and non road users. Almost invariably this goes on uninterrupted by even token police intervention.
Yet, modestly exceed a 70 mph limit on a dry, nigh empty road as I describe above, and thou shalt be punished. (Interestingly, the police have advocated an 80mph limit for motorways going back decades.)
Lastly, fear not the £60 fine; it’s the knock on to insurance premiums that hits hard. Salad days for the insurers!
- Posted by Stan MackayQuite the opposite. I don’t fear speeding drivers, only a very small minority of them are actually dangerous which is represented by the minority of accidents due to ‘exceeding the speed limit’.
They are however a huge distraction.
“Why? If you don’t speed you have nothing to worry about”
Trouble is they record your speed at an instant and not the 1/4 mile a police officer is confined to. Picture this, you come to the top of a hill (a prime location for cameras). You’re a young unexperienced driver (relatively to others) you don’t come off the throttle just a fraction enough and you hit 34mph (god forbid). Bang, £60 fine 3 points and not to mention what insurance will do. Second time and you are now stuffed for the next 5 years. I myself have held my license for less than 2 years and as such am watching my speedo far more than i watch the road going past a speed camera. Yes i’m probably doing 25 but the consequences of being wrong are so completely over the top for us it’s not funny.
They also fail to address the driving habits that actually pose a real danger like;
- Tail gating
- Dangerous Driving
- Dangerous cars
- Driving too fast for conditions
- Drunk drivers
- Untaxed drivers
- Uninsured drivers
Whereas simply putting more traffic police on the roads would solve all these area’s and allow a degree of digression into the picture and hopefully help restore the considerable damage speed cameras have done to the publics faith in the police.
- Posted by James huntI live in the state of Virginia which recently passed laws to heavily penalize drivers for a number of trafic violations, primarily speeding. Why? Drivers who are caught speeding are usally repeat offenders and are also more likely to cause an accident than other drivers. As roadways become increasingly congested we need to find a way to curb dangerous driving habits and penalizing speeders has proven to be the most cost-effective solution.
- Posted by Lloyd Hansen