Some people make a lot of effort to make their
 feelings known about speed cameras ... 		Vandals attack speed camera

Firefighters were called out to Bennetts Bank, Wellington, on a Saturday night, after reports of sparks coming from the camera following an attempt to topple it with a power saw. The Gatso camera is thought to be the only one in Shropshire, and Councillor Gary Davies, a former mayor of Wellington, said the camera - which provides video evidence of speeders - was helping to make money, er ... save lives.

The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR
Dear Rt Hon Darling

Speed cameras in the wrong places

I have seen welcome promises from you and Mr Jamieson in the media recently about reviewing the locations of speed cameras. It has been stated that cameras not placed in accordance with the guidelines will be relocated.

Unfortunately there is a fatal flaw in the guidelines as I revealed in Motorcycle News last week.

In brief, the error is as follows. The rules state that cameras may only be placed in locations where the 85th percentile traffic speed is above the ACPO prosecution threshold. Research has long shown that in all normal circumstances the 85th percentile speed is safe and appropriate for the road conditions, and that the 85th percentile drivers are the safest.

The effect of this rule is therefore two fold:

1) Cameras may only be placed in locations where our safest drivers consider it reasonable and prudent to exceed the speed limit.

2) Cameras may not be placed in locations where our safest drivers consider it dangerous to exceed the speed limit.

This is exactly the opposite of the desired road safety effect. If cameras were justified they should clearly be placed in locations where speeding is dangerous. The flaw means that virtually all speed cameras are in the wrong places.

This is a blunder of epic proportions and you must suspend all speed camera operations immediately pending a complete independent review. The independent review will find a wide range of serious errors and false assumptions that underlie the entire principle of speed cameras as road safety devices.

I intend to publish your reply to the Safe Speed web site.

Yours sincerely


 

Paul Smith

cc Damian Green MP,
John Thurso MP,
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html

The rules are all a bit technical but check out the site for details. Basically, if there's an 85% chance that drivers will speed then a camera is allowed, but below that chance no camera is allowed. So because 85% of drivers are too sensible to speed in dangerous areas, outside schools, in busy residential streets, etc., no cameras are permitted to catch the stupid nutters who cause all the accidents!! So all the cameras get put on dual carriageways where it is quite safe to exceed the posted limit within reason. How mad is that? Still, think of all that lovely revenue! So perhaps not so silly ..... we know cameras having nothing to do with road safety, after all, just motorists' tax. New Labour - New Taxes. Take comfort from the fact that Tony knows what's best for us. Unless you're a soldier of course. Rather you than us, mates!

Piffle

New guidelines governing roadside speed cameras have been defended by the government. The high visibility cameras painted bright yellow were unveiled recently and come with new rules on the position of camera signs as part of a drive to cut the number of accidents.

Cameras will be bright yellow in the 15 areas where police forces use money from fines to pay for more cameras, the "netting-off" scheme. Transport Minister John Spellar said the aim of speed cameras was not to catch large numbers of motorists and collect more fines, but to get drivers to slow down and thus reduce accidents.

Despite plans to introduce thousands more cameras on the UK's roads, the government is worried many drivers brake suddenly when they see one. Updated regulations will be announced for the rest of the country early next year but ministers have indicated every camera in the country will eventually be repainted.

One option - fill the bugger up with builder's expanding foam. Photo from Tuftuf Club - good site if you can understand Dutch!

Under the new measures, speed cameras must now be visible from a distance of 66 yards ( 60 metres) on roads with a speed limit of up to 40mph ( 64 Kmph), and 109 yards ( 100 metres) for speeds above that. Police forces will also be forbidden from putting up speed trap warning signs on long stretches of roads where there are no cameras. The signs will now have to be no more than two thirds of a mile from the nearest camera.

The government has already announced that speed cameras can only be put in locations with a history of crashes. Except for Thames Valley, of course .... they need the money.

Mr Spellar said: "These rules should ensure that motorists are not caught by surprise by cameras. I hope that this will reinforce the government's message that cameras are there to save lives at places where there is a history of speed related accidents. They are not there as a means of raising money."

Cameras in beauty spots can remain grey under the new regulations. Thames Valley force have applied for beauty spot status in 472 new locations.

There has been a lot in the news about the apparent underground group calling themselves 'MAD', this subject has caused me some concern.

In the not too distant past, I enjoyed the thrills of travelling at 140 plus mph and at the time thought nothing of it. It was a blast and I got a real buzz from going as fast I could on what ever performance bike I could get my hands on. I have go to say I have grown up now and although I will never forget the thrill speed gave me but can appreciate just how close I got to losing it all and messing up others lives.

I have now got three great kids and would life have been so different if I had ended up in a wheelchair or maybe I could have killed someone. With maturity, I now feel that my life and the lives of my children are very precious to me and I am sure that any parent must feel the same.

These cameras, do encourage people to slow down, even if it is for a short span until they're out of range and drivers speed up again, but if it stops children and others getting hurt surely that's worth it. Wouldn't you just be pissed off if your kid got run over on a stretch of road that the camera was out of action because it had been bombed by these 'oh so brave' (undercover - because their really not that brave) heros from MAD.

My feelings are that the cameras are there for a reason and if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem! Speed is addictive and there's nothing wrong with that either, but if you feel the need for speed, take some place where its legal and safe, not on public roads where it kills the innocent and the unsuspecting.

I can't think of anything better than travelling over the ton, taking the bends low, overtaking by taking risks and leaving manoeuvres at the last minute, just testing how far you can push your nerve, feeling on top of the bloody world and I even envy those beautiful, fantastic machines that just hum past me on the motorway. Honestly, isn't there enough death in the world, without us killing each other needlessly. Just keep it to the limit, the camera won't flash, you don't get fined and you don't get to kill anyone either - Bonus!

Helen Doughty

I think we have to face it that evolution decreed that man was the wayward hunter and woman the home provider. Nothing's really changed, just speed cameras now instead of Brontasauri. I am not overly keen on modern-day parents - they're the reason I can't get the top off the asprin bottle when I've got a hangover, or get my washing out of the machine when it stops, or open the bleach bottle, or ..... CUT! © Grumpy Old Men

 

Spot the camera ....
However, the message doesn't seem to be getting through too well on the A3. Cameras are still hidden behind signs, even signs which seem to be created just to hide cameras behind! In the true spirit of the new guidelines, this sneaky camera has been painted in reflective yellow - shame it's completely hidden to oncoming vehicles. If this is an accident black-spot, why not just close the dangerous turning?


 
Now you see it, now you don't. Another sneak camera on the A3, near Hook roundabout. Nice and yellow again, but totally obscured by the road sign. And this one's actually located just after an on-ramp and a dangerous T junction, so the hapless motorist is trying to spot the camera rather than watching for vehicles turning out onto the main road. Clever - get the camera to create the accident black-spot.


 
And another one, still at the Hook roundabout, but this time on the west bound carriageway. The off-ramp sign is just big enough to conceal the camera. But why is it after the junction? Why is it there at all? Not just for making money, surely ....
  MAD
PRESS RELEASE

Wednesday 22nd August 2002

FLEECING, NOT POLICING!

I can confirm that a militant organisation known as MOTORISTS AGAINST DETECTION (MAD) have this week started a direct action anti speed camera campaign, kicking off with the UK's most profitable speed camera located at the bottom of the M11 motorway near WOODFORD, ESSEX which is reputed to earn up to £840,000 per week, moving in to take out of action a further 29 speed cameras along the whole 27 mile length of the A406 NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD from CHISWICK in the west to BECKTON in the east side of LONDON.

A spokesman for MAD calling himself CAPTAIN GATSO said today:

"We represent an unheard band of motorists and bikers fed up with this continuing proliferation of speed cameras, specs cameras, bus lane, parking and now congestion cameras. We are sick and tired of driving to our speedos and braking in the vicinity of a speed camera as opposed to driving and braking as to what we can see!

We are fed up with lining the pockets of police forces and councils as a stealth tax revenue raising scheme.

We are not criminals, just drivers going about our daily business and we are essentially law abiding citizens. However everytime a person gets behind the wheel or rides a motorcycle they can become a criminal in respect of absolute motoring laws administered by the non-discretionary nature of speed camera systems! We totally agree with existing road traffic laws and speed cameras sited within built up and urban areas and we APPLAUD them. In fact we feel there should be more of them in towns and cities, but we are tired of having speed cameras sited on major trunk roads and motorways where there are never any children playing. They are unnecessary and achieve very little in bringing down the numbers of casualties and deaths on the UK's roads. This is supported by TRL, DETR and HOME OFFICE figures, however they add large amounts of ill-gotten gains to police and council coffers, further alienating the voting motoring public.

We have spoken to numerous police officers and emergency service personnel countrywide and they agree that the majority of speed cameras are sited for revenue, not safety, and in a lot of cases they just impede general progress.

Everyday now it seems we read stories about camera technology and hear people talking to radio stations moaning about them. Up until now this has made not a lot of difference which is why it is time for us all to act before it all gets out of hand.

This campaign is ongoing and is being professionally organised via the internet throughout the UK and will be orchestrated by direct action to take out speed cameras on major trunk roads and motorways due to this governments continuing war on the motorist!"

CAPTAIN GATSO

(THE MOTORISTS FRIEND)

Media enquiries to 07817 640245

ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION CAN BE CORROBORATED BY THE METROPOLITAN POLICE, SCOTLAND YARD AND THE LONDON SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP.

 

Government plans to introduce high visibility speed cameras may actually increase deaths rather than improve road safety, 'experts' have warned. The policy is aimed at cutting road accidents amid fears that many drivers brake suddenly when they see or are warned of speed cameras. Public health 'specialist' Paul Pilkington has warned there is no evidence to support the government's claims. Writing in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal, he said hidden cameras had been shown to reduce deaths and injury on roads, even though they rose last year. Mr Pilkington, who works in Bristol, suggested high visibility cameras would not be as effective. He said drivers would simply drive slowly in areas with cameras and accelerate in those areas without the deterrent. "These measures seem designed to placate the angry minority of motorists who believe that drivers should be warned about impending cameras, giving them the chance to slow down. But this view is not based on evidence of health benefits. Hidden cameras are associated with net falls in speeds, crashes and casualties when compared with visible ones." (He uses the word associated here because there are no figures available to back his assertion up). He added: "The introduction of high visibility speed cameras is a mistake. We need evidence that they are more effective than hidden cameras." Look Paul, old chap, it is better to get drivers to slow down in accident areas than catch them all on camera, ban 'em and eventually watch the economy disappear down the plughole. People who work and pay taxes drive cars. No cars, no business, no taxes. They you're out of a job as well, mate. Luckily a rather more sensible spokesman for the Department of Transport said that "Cameras are situated in areas where there is a history of accidents. When people see cameras ahead they do slow down. Slowing down at dangerous stretches of a road is very good."

A word from PePiPoo ....

Recent Government Guidelines, which state that Speed Cameras should be made clearly visible, would appear to be causing confusion.

Guidelines are not mentioned in the law so, if the speed camera that flashed you, was hidden from view it will NOT affect the allegation of speeding that has been brought against you. However, you should report the cameras location to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) as doing so, should result in the particular authority being removed from the “netting off scheme” which allows them to keep part of the revenue collected by their speed cameras. http://www.pepipoo.com/Cameras.htm

ACPO Traffic Enforcement Guidelines are also not mentioned in the law, but they unambiguously state that traffic officers performing speed checks should do so from a position that is clearly visible to the public. http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/ACPO_full.htm#Visibility

“31.2 The operator must be clearly visible to the public and the target vehicle throughout the check.”

So, if you see a Traffic Officer hiding behind a bush or working from inside an unmarked transit van, why not stop and ask them if they realise that their conduct is breaching the ACPO guidelines – please don’t forget to ask them for their name, number and the contact details of their Chief Constable so that you can write a letter of complaint about the officer's conduct.

Happy motoring, PePiPoo

  Norfolk - ooh ar
Norfolk's chief constable Ken Williams, who chairs the Association of Chief Police Officers' traffic committee, argued the need to make speed cameras more visible. He said hidden cameras alienated drivers and added: "Police officers get no joy out of issuing fixed penalty tickets, but they get a lot of satisfaction out of changing behaviour and attitudes to speed."

Mr Williams' force was one of the first to introduce bright cameras as a solution. Now they will appear in Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Derbyshire, Essex, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, North Wales, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South Wales, Staffordshire, Strathclyde, Thames Valley and Warwickshire.

Motorists believe the government - or the police - are just using them to collect money. Applications from 12 other police forces to join the netting-off scheme are being processed.

The table shows the impact of enforcement at camera sites selected for netting-off pilot schemes, the first full year of operation (year 2000) compared with baseline data for the previous 3 years. Nice to see that Thames Valley was targetting accident blackspots rather than putting cameras where they would collect the most money (... joke) - a massive reduction of 4% in personal injury collisions (PICS) and a big fat zero change in killed or seriously injured (KSI). Lovely jubbly.
Richard Freeman of the Automobile Association (AA) told BBC News Online that drivers would welcome the high visibility cameras. "All our research shows that the public do not like the idea of speed cameras being hidden away or not clearly signed," he explained. "And it is a pity that we have seen a gradual erosion of camera signing. We have also seen the opposite - where there are signs but no cameras, so motorists do not know what is going on."

More than 75% of drivers still support the use of speed cameras, according to Mr Freeman. "But problems begin when people think there is an element of entrapment," he added. "Support drops off in areas where cameras are not well signed because motorists believe the government - or the police - are just using them to collect money."
 

Motorists escape speed camera fines

Only one in four drivers flashed by a speed camera has had to pay a fine, a major motoring report from the RAC claims.
It said most of the speeding drivers never receive a fine in the post, while a minority manage to escape conviction.

The survey found drivers believe that more than 70% of motorists speed on motorways, but only 42% are prepared to admit doing so themselves.

The RAC also said most drivers now accept traffic jams as a way of life, with many leaving extra time for delays during their journeys.In its annual motoring survey, the organisation suggests speed cameras work as a deterrent against speeding, whether drivers receive a fine or not.

Motoring facts
71% think most drivers speed on motorways
22% say motorway limits 'do not mean much'
78% back the use of speed cameras
69% not fined after speed camera flash
42% want mobile phones banned while driving
Two thirds said they slow down when confronted with a camera - although many said that might cause dangerous sudden braking.
A majority of the 1,800 people questioned supported the use of cameras and their proliferation across Britain. Despite the public support for the cameras motoring experts suggested they would be far more effective if punishment was swift and certain.

According to the RAC traffic jams are now seen as unavoidable, with congestion affecting eight out of ten drivers. Despite the problem most drivers preferred to find a way around the congestion rather than a switch to alternative transport. Some 24% said they start their journeys earlier, 22% take different routes, and 18% change journey times. Only 29% were confident to set off on a journey without making any provision for congestion, compared to 41% in the 1997 annual survey. Two in five blamed congestion on "too many cars on the road", while 18% blamed roadworks and one in ten said public transport was the cause. Asked to consider which regular weekly car journey they could give up, 29% would not or could not think of one.

 

 

Is everyone in Nottingham a sad bastard? Is this where policemen come from?

 

WITH MORE speed cameras appearing every week and calls for strict limits on rural roads, a new survey has revealed two out of three motorists don't see speed as a problem. While the Government works itself into a frenzy over speeding, nearly half the motorcyclists and car drivers questioned said they think it's time to raise the speed limits on Britain's motorways. Some argued the limit should be as high as 90mph. Nearly 1000 people took part in the survey, run by insurance firm People's Choice. It also found that 88 per cent of road users oppose the introduction of more cameras, while nearly seven out of 10 don't think speeding is a problem at all. The results were welcomed by riders' rights group MAG. Spokesman Ian Mutch said: "Safety organisations' obsession with speed is getting out of hand. "Most cameras are put up in places where it is easy to catch offenders and collect fines and not where speeding is a major problem." Road safety experts at the AA claim there is little evidence to support official moves to make speeding as serious as drink driving. The AA's Dominic Connell said: "It is predominantly in 30mph areas where the abuse of speed limits can cause accidents and injuries." He said enforcing even more stringent limits on motorways would be counter productive, but added that the AA doesn't support raising limits. "Many drivers are already too complacent about the 70mph limit," he said. Chief Insp Phil Groves, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, admitted that many people feel limits are too low. He said: "They have to realise limits are set at that level for a reason and that reason is .... ummmm."Speeding only ranks fifth in the Government's own statistics on accidents but, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?

The multi-million pound income from fines goes straight to the local authorities to finance more cameras and personnel to administer fund collection from road users. No-one is pretending these measures are really aimed at reducing accidents, they are designed to increase profit revenues and so cameras will be placed in locations most suited to maximising income.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists state that "Speed cameras don't tackle the issue of inappropriate speed". Thames Valley police state, however, "We aim to at least double the number of speeding tickets issued".

If you're caught speeding on camera, plod relies on Section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes is a criminal offence not to tell the police who was riding the bike (or car) at the time, to force you to own up. If the offence is serious so you're looking at a big ban, you're better off telling plod "I know nothing" and hoping the European Convention on Human Rights does it for you - Section 22 contravenes the Convention
 

 
  Tut, tut ...  

 

Police target small plates

Police have launched a campaign to target bikers who use small number plates to avoid being caught on speed cameras. It follows reports of motorcyclists driving at excessive speeds in the Humber region. Officers hope the campaign will stop so many of them from speeding during the fine weather in the summer months. Police say motorists displaying illegal number plates will also be prosecuted.

Pc Andy Walker, casualty reduction officer in Hull, said: "This campaign is directed at motorcyclists because of the alarming increase in serious injuries combined with evidence of increased illegal number plate use. In most cases the use of such number plates is a deliberate attempt to evade detection for traffic offences. Small, misaligned number plates make it difficult to identify speeding motorcyclists and therefore they remain a danger on our roads."

The initiative will involve specific routes, individual motorbike checks, and roadside checks.

 

Motorists Against Detection

Around 600 cameras have been attacked by MAD in the last couple of years. The group only targets cameras on trunk roads and motorways, where there seems to be no risk to pedestrians, and supports their use in built-up areas. Their methods include plastic explosives, spray paint and angle-grinders. Last August, MAD vandalised 29 cameras on the London North Circular Road in one night.

 

 

Speed camera destroyed by bomb

A speed camera has been destroyed by a bomb planted on the main box. The blast sent shards of metal flying more than 50 feet into the air. (Into the air, not across the road !!!)

Bomb disposal experts are investigating how the equipment on the A605 at Thrapston, Northamptonshire, was wrecked. The incident is the latest in a series of deliberate attacks on speed cameras across the country, which has been blamed on frustrated motorists. Dozens of cameras have been burned, toppled and driven into, but the A605 camera was believed to be the first that had been bombed.

A team from the Explosive Ordnance disposal unit has examined the site and forensic experts have also studied the debris.

 

Vandals attack speed camera

Firefighters were called out to Bennetts Bank, Wellington, on a Saturday night, after reports of sparks coming from the camera following an attempt to topple it with a power saw.

The Gatso camera is thought to be the only one in Shropshire, and Councillor Gary Davies, a former mayor of Wellington, said the camera - which provides video evidence of speeders - was helping to make money, er ... save lives.

 

Arsonists destroy speed camera

Police have condemned arsonists who put a speed camera on one of Northamptonshire's most hazardous roads out of action. The device at Thorpe Waterville on the A605 was severely damaged.

Police said 29 people have been killed or seriously injured on the stretch between Thrapston and Oundle in the last three years.


Motorway speed camera destroyed

A £10,000 motorway speed camera has been cut down with a blow torch and thrown off a bridge in Devon. The Devon and Cornwall Police camera was monitoring the 50mph speed limit imposed at roadworks on the southbound lanes of the M5 near Exeter. Officers spotted the camera in a river below the bridge.

Devon and Cornwall Police spokesman Pc Roy Adams said: "We are assuming it was a disgruntled motorist who was caught speeding on Wednesday night. The camera is a write-off and the film inside is ruined, so if anyone was driving there on Wednesday night and they were flashed at by the camera, the evidence is now at the bottom of the river."

It is not the first time speed cameras have been attacked in the county. Three cameras were attacked in Plymouth when tyres were put over them and set alight. However, the Plymouth attacks and the Exeter incident are believed to be unrelated. Devon and Cornwall Police said of their cameras: "The most common myth is that cameras are there to catch motorists out and raise revenue, but their purpose is to change driver behaviour." Seems to be working ....

The moral of all this?

Treat adults like naughty children and they will behave as such. Speed cameras are a blight on this country and should be outlawed. Speed does NOT cause accidents, but it does make the result of an accident more serious. What causes accidents? Tiredness, distraction, poor eyesight, drink and drugs.

Footnote

More speed cameras are to be installed across Britain and the blinkered government is considering increasing speeding penalties.

Department for Transport (DfT) figures indicate roads with speed cameras have seen a 35% drop in deaths and serious injuries. This means more than 280 have been prevented, saving the exchequer £112m.
 

The growth in revenue show no government could justify scrapping them, according to a transport minister. The number of people killed or seriously injured in the areas around cameras fell by up to 67% in Strathclyde, 62% in Lincolnshire and 53% in Cleveland.

But in Essex the number of deaths and serious injuries within 545 yards (500 metres) of a camera rose by 15%.

And the number of injuries near cameras in the Thames Valley rose by 14%.

Of the £27m in fines paid by thousands of drivers caught on film in Cleveland, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Strathclyde, Essex, south Wales and the Thames Valley during the past two years, £21m was used to buy more speed cameras and £6m went to the Treasury. DfT officials say the fines can now pay for the number of working cameras to double. At the moment as few as one out of every 10 actually contain film, but the government hopes they will become common across the country. SIEG HEIL!

Stories taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk
 

LINKS - www.flagpromotions.com www.ecom-uk.net www.white-labels.com www.kaosuk.net www.speedcams.co.uk www.needaflyer.co.uk
 www.eeetickets.co.uk www.purple-elf.co.uk www.purplecatmedia.co.uk www.purplecatmedia.com www.fmgdirect.co.uk