Wrongly sited GATSOs

Author
Discussion

Oversteer

Original Poster:

247 posts

265 months

Tuesday 29th October 2002
quotequote all
The ACPO guidelines state that fixed site cameras must be sited facing a straight stretch of road and I thought it might be an idea to name any that aren't.

For starters the one in Tidmarsh Berks (between Theale/Pangbourne facing Pangbourne) definitely isn't. If you get done by this you really ought to fight it.

Any more?

DancingMoose

5,591 posts

265 months

Tuesday 29th October 2002
quotequote all
Came accross a hidden one on the way into Lincoln a year or so back, can't remeber the exact location tho. It was on an off-cambre sharp left downhill.

I'd hate to think what would happen if someone who was speeding braked to avoid it!

thub

1,359 posts

291 months

Tuesday 29th October 2002
quotequote all
I don't agree with the way that both cameras in Tidmarsh used to be hidden in the trees before they were made hi-viz.

On the other hand, what are you doing considering driving around a blindish corner, in a village, just before a busy tee-junction (sign-posted), at more than 30mph?

Despite my general anti-camera stance, I feel that the cameras in the area we're both in are generally placed sensibly, even if they don't all adhere to the current guidelines.

Please excuse me while I go and lie down after defending a speed camera....

Oversteer

Original Poster:

247 posts

265 months

Tuesday 29th October 2002
quotequote all
I'm not considering it, just pointing out that it is just before a bend and that this is definitely against the guidelines that have been laid down by the authorities.

>> Edited by Oversteer on Tuesday 29th October 17:04

Deadly Dog

281 posts

274 months

Tuesday 29th October 2002
quotequote all
Oversteer,

As I mentioned before, ACPO guidelines are not recognised in law so if push came to shove, these would carry little weight in a court of law. What you have to do is trace these guidelines back to their source, i.e. Home Office Type Approval which is recognised and enforceable in law - remember my post on section 23?

A condition of Type Approval for a Gatso is that it must be located on a 400 metre stretch of straight road, so your camera appears to be generating evidence inadmissible under section 23.

thub

1,359 posts

291 months

Wednesday 30th October 2002
quotequote all
Fair point Oversteer. Even though the camera is 'protecting' a worthy area, its siting does need improving.

lucozade

2,574 posts

286 months

Wednesday 30th October 2002
quotequote all
All, check this link out:
www.abd.org.uk/site_audit_form.htm

The ABD has posted a form you can fill in and submit to the relevant bodies concerning this issue.

My belief is that although there are Home Office Guidelines it will not matter in front of one of those magistrates anyway.

You are all assuming that we all get a fair just trial!

Oversteer

Original Poster:

247 posts

265 months

Wednesday 30th October 2002
quotequote all
Point taken regarding the ACPO guidelines, however I don't have access to the type approval documentation and as you have said one is derived from the other. I'm just going on what I do know. Looking at the siting of this camera again this morning I would have said it was no more than 40 feet from the apex of a quite sharp bend in the road.

Obviously though the people operating and maintaining these devices should willfully ignore the home office rules as developed by the police scientific development branch. Despite these deviations all evidence captured by GATSOs is totally accurate and the results of the type approval testing should be ignored. Anyone considering pleading not guilty to a speeding charge on a "technicality" is clearly un-british and committing treason. You are not a motorist, you are a tax payer.

Nothing like a little hyperbole to start the morning...

griff2be

5,090 posts

274 months

Wednesday 30th October 2002
quotequote all
Nothing wrong with the Tidmarsh cameras IMHO. Big 30mph sign followed by smaller 30mph sign with a camera motif, followed by slight bend and camera with high viz tape on it, followed by bus stop, pub and junction, all in the centre of a village. Much the same in the other direction.

My only comment on them would be it would have been better to have sited them slightly further out so that people have slowed down well before the village centre.

Anyone know the A4074 out of Reading towards Oxford. About 5 miles out of Reading there is a series of bends know to local taxi drivers as 'The 7 bends of death'. When you know the road they are fun to drive, but there have been countless accidents which culminate in car at speed meeting large, solid trees. On average there is a car in the trees once every 2 months.

Given all the fuss about road safety, when will this be addressed? A camera at each end would slow people who don't know the roads. Some armco which would prevent the horrendous impacts when car meets tree. This stretch of road must be responsible for many deaths and serious injuries (=big cost to the NHS)- yet nothing is done.

I suppose its much easier to pop a camera on a stretch of straight dual carriageway and let the cash register roll (kerrrching!). I think this stretch of road is Oxfordshire - a county where they are not shy of installing a speed camera or two...

mondeoman

11,430 posts

273 months

Wednesday 30th October 2002
quotequote all

griff2be said: Nothing wrong with the Tidmarsh cameras IMHO. Big 30mph sign followed by smaller 30mph sign with a camera motif, followed by slight bend and camera with high viz tape on it, followed by bus stop, pub and junction, all in the centre of a village. Much the same in the other direction.

My only comment on them would be it would have been better to have sited them slightly further out so that people have slowed down well before the village centre.

Anyone know the A4074 out of Reading towards Oxford. About 5 miles out of Reading there is a series of bends know to local taxi drivers as 'The 7 bends of death'. When you know the road they are fun to drive, but there have been countless accidents which culminate in car at speed meeting large, solid trees. On average there is a car in the trees once every 2 months.

Given all the fuss about road safety, when will this be addressed? A camera at each end would slow people who don't know the roads. Some armco which would prevent the horrendous impacts when car meets tree. This stretch of road must be responsible for many deaths and serious injuries (=big cost to the NHS)- yet nothing is done.

I suppose its much easier to pop a camera on a stretch of straight dual carriageway and let the cash register roll (kerrrching!). I think this stretch of road is Oxfordshire - a county where they are not shy of installing a speed camera or two...


Well, here is a PERFECT opportunity to show that fast drivers do take road safety seriously. Write to your local MP and question the positioning of some of the cameras (dual carriageways etc), then with the killer blow ask why a cameras hasn't been installed on the notorious bends....... Love to see his answer to that!

pmcrory

11 posts

264 months

Wednesday 6th November 2002
quotequote all
I understand that the ACPO site used to include all the relevant documents to do with rules and regulations for speed cameras, until they took it down (thanks Paul).

Does anyone know of a convenient source for these documents now (camera siting guidelines, type approvals, etc), which, of course, should be publicly and freely available?

Jason F

1,183 posts

291 months

Thursday 7th November 2002
quotequote all
I have not looked yet but the HMSO website should have a list of most statutes etc.. if you can peruse them and see any references to Gatsos etc..