Speed cameras to be removed?
Discussion
Latest news release from the Speed Trap Bible:
"The Government has issued tougher-than-expected rules on where the spy devices can be placed - and insists that motorists are warned of their location. The new guidelines from the Department of Transport will:
. Outlaw cameras on roads without a proven accident blackspot. They must only be sited where four people have been killed or seriously injured, or where eight "personal injury" accidents have occurred in
three years.
. Cameras must be painted yellow and be clearly visible to drivers from 60 metres in 40mph limits and 100 metres elsewhere - stamping out the practice of hiding cameras behind trees, hedges, lampposts
and road signs.
. Signs warning of cameras must be within one kilometre of the devices, and must not be put up on roads where no cameras exist.
Cameras which do not comply with the strict criteria must be removed within the next six months, the DoT has ruled.
The clampdown is aimed at scores of local authorities and police forces who have joined the controversial "cash for cameras" incentive
scheme which allows them to recoup money from speeding fines and plough it back into enforcement.
The Government is issuing the new rule book this week in a bid to win back support from thousands of drivers who have become increasingly hostile to the rapid proliferation speed cameras.
Ministers feared a backlash as more and more drivers claimed they were being flashed by cameras that should not have been there in the first place.
The AA today said the new rules would benefit safety and were an important victory for drivers and for motoring organisations which had campaigned for fair play.
"We expect that hundreds may have to be removed as a result of this and we welcome it," said Paul Watters.
"It is a sensible move by the Government and one that will ensure motorists continue to respect wellsited speed cameras."
Government studies have repeatedly demonstrated that cameras save lives and prevent injuries - when they are sited in blackspots. But the AA has charted their public acceptance and says support for them is falling.
Paul
The Speed Trap Bible
www.speed-trap.co.uk
paul@go-faster.com "
"The Government has issued tougher-than-expected rules on where the spy devices can be placed - and insists that motorists are warned of their location. The new guidelines from the Department of Transport will:
. Outlaw cameras on roads without a proven accident blackspot. They must only be sited where four people have been killed or seriously injured, or where eight "personal injury" accidents have occurred in
three years.
. Cameras must be painted yellow and be clearly visible to drivers from 60 metres in 40mph limits and 100 metres elsewhere - stamping out the practice of hiding cameras behind trees, hedges, lampposts
and road signs.
. Signs warning of cameras must be within one kilometre of the devices, and must not be put up on roads where no cameras exist.
Cameras which do not comply with the strict criteria must be removed within the next six months, the DoT has ruled.
The clampdown is aimed at scores of local authorities and police forces who have joined the controversial "cash for cameras" incentive
scheme which allows them to recoup money from speeding fines and plough it back into enforcement.
The Government is issuing the new rule book this week in a bid to win back support from thousands of drivers who have become increasingly hostile to the rapid proliferation speed cameras.
Ministers feared a backlash as more and more drivers claimed they were being flashed by cameras that should not have been there in the first place.
The AA today said the new rules would benefit safety and were an important victory for drivers and for motoring organisations which had campaigned for fair play.
"We expect that hundreds may have to be removed as a result of this and we welcome it," said Paul Watters.
"It is a sensible move by the Government and one that will ensure motorists continue to respect wellsited speed cameras."
Government studies have repeatedly demonstrated that cameras save lives and prevent injuries - when they are sited in blackspots. But the AA has charted their public acceptance and says support for them is falling.
Paul
The Speed Trap Bible
www.speed-trap.co.uk
paul@go-faster.com "
This is most welcome. It flies in the face of something I read on this site recently, when a Govt. spokesman could not guarentee that cameras would be removed - each case requiring enquiry into the merit of each camera, or some such tosh.
I hope it will be enforced, but I guess we can do our bit by noting all cameras, and writing to the Police and local council, asking for lists of recognised accident blackspots, checking on sign postiions etc. GO DO IT, CHAPS!! Let's get our roads back!
I hope it will be enforced, but I guess we can do our bit by noting all cameras, and writing to the Police and local council, asking for lists of recognised accident blackspots, checking on sign postiions etc. GO DO IT, CHAPS!! Let's get our roads back!
I think that another guideline should be added.
As said above many people want evidence that a speed camera is placed in a position because it is an accident blackspot and not just a revenue earner. The best way to do this is by erecting signs before entering a blackspot area which has speed cameras explaining why they are there.
For example in Northants on the A508 there is a large sign stating that the road is a "RED ROUTE" and that there has been 27 accidents over a three year period. This serves two important roles, firstly to warn you the road is dangerous, and secondly, explains why the speed cameras are there. I am more likely to accept the speed cameras on that road are placed for legitimate reasons.
I understand that in many areas there are the small triangular "Accident Blackspot" signs but by quoting actual figures I for one believe that the placement of the speed camera can be explained and motorists will feel they are justified.
However, on the other hand I can see that there is the potential for "fudging of results". For example, "there's been X accidents at this junction so we will put cameras on the road either side for 5 miles". Cynical I know but just trying to think of all possibilities.
As said above many people want evidence that a speed camera is placed in a position because it is an accident blackspot and not just a revenue earner. The best way to do this is by erecting signs before entering a blackspot area which has speed cameras explaining why they are there.
For example in Northants on the A508 there is a large sign stating that the road is a "RED ROUTE" and that there has been 27 accidents over a three year period. This serves two important roles, firstly to warn you the road is dangerous, and secondly, explains why the speed cameras are there. I am more likely to accept the speed cameras on that road are placed for legitimate reasons.
I understand that in many areas there are the small triangular "Accident Blackspot" signs but by quoting actual figures I for one believe that the placement of the speed camera can be explained and motorists will feel they are justified.
However, on the other hand I can see that there is the potential for "fudging of results". For example, "there's been X accidents at this junction so we will put cameras on the road either side for 5 miles". Cynical I know but just trying to think of all possibilities.
My concern is that this may be used as a smokescreen for the forthcoming Crime Bill review. This aims to implement, via the back door, some of the worst excesses published in the Home Office's much criticised Road Traffic Penalties consultation document: www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/guv/rtpcons.pdf
quote:
My concern is that this may be used as a smokescreen for the forthcoming Crime Bill review. This aims to implement, via the back door, some of the worst excesses published in the Home Office's much criticised Road Traffic Penalties consultation document: www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/guv/rtpcons.pdf
yeah, check it out peeps. It is more scary than gatsos alone..
There are two proposals for a tiered system of fines and points the second makes no sense what-so-ever. It has lower tier plus 5 mph, higher tier +15mph. If you're in the lower tier its 5 points and £60 (on a 20 point scale) and 15 points and £90 on the higher scale.
So its a lower tier for 35 in a 30 zone but get this, higher tier for 76 in a 70 zone. (so the 10% has gone). Who thinks of this rubbish? Who on earth can say that there is no difference between these two. In percentage terms this means 17% over the limit at 30mph and 7% over at 70mph. Yet as motorways are the safest roads in the UK shouldn't it be the other way round?
If you're doing more than 85mph on a motorway this proposal means you're driving dangerously. Incredible!
So its a lower tier for 35 in a 30 zone but get this, higher tier for 76 in a 70 zone. (so the 10% has gone). Who thinks of this rubbish? Who on earth can say that there is no difference between these two. In percentage terms this means 17% over the limit at 30mph and 7% over at 70mph. Yet as motorways are the safest roads in the UK shouldn't it be the other way round?
If you're doing more than 85mph on a motorway this proposal means you're driving dangerously. Incredible!
quote:
This country depresses me!!
How long would it take to be accepted into another country?!?
What do I have to do to get into the likes of the US or Oz? I wanna go somewhere that isn't run by a bunch of nannies! Well, ok that rules the US out then
Anyone got any better suggestions?!?!
the problem is the nutcase`save takkn over the madhouse
no where left to live in peace unless you got plenty of cash too but your self a nice litte bannana republic.
alot more cash and you could buy the bannana republic of england.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff