Kopite Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Go slow: police win the right to camouflage speed cameras By Ben Webster The prominent yellow boxes may be harder to identify from next year MOTORISTS face the return of hidden speed cameras after rules governing their siting and visibility cease to be enforced from April 2007. Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, will be able to repaint yellow cameras to make them blend into the background. They will also be able to install cameras where there is a speeding problem but little history of crashes. At present the partnerships are bound by strict rules issued by the Department for Transport. The cameras must be painted bright yellow and be visible from at least 60m (200ft) away. They can be installed only at sites where there have been at least three collisions causing death or serious injury and three causing slight injury within a kilometre in the previous three years. Many partnerships believe that the rules are too restrictive. Last autumn, Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales Police, said that many more lives would be saved if there were more flexibility in camera location. He said: “Parents often write to us and ask us to put a camera outside a school because the traffic is so dangerous. It’s very difficult to write back and say, ‘Please let us know when your son is killed and then we can consider putting a camera there.’ ” Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, said in December that partnerships would no longer be able to keep the cash from camera fines to pay for more cameras. They will get grants from a central road safety fund to pay for cameras or alternative measures such as new markings or humps. Ian Bell, the camera liaison officer for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said that regional differences were likely. “If a highway authority wants to install more cameras and they have the money there will be nothing to stop them. They may decide to put cameras in places the criteria do not currently allow, such as in villages and around schools.” Lee Murphy, speed camera manager for Cheshire, said: “If the rules weren’t compulsory we could use cameras to tackle emerging trends rather than waiting for the minimum number of collisions.” A Department of Transport spokesman said: “Local authorities will have freedom to use cameras where appropriate and where they see fit. But we do not want to see a return to the bad old days of cameras being hidden behind trees. We are minded to use guidance to achieve this, but if authorities flout it we will consider regulation. If they want to paint cameras grey we will want to know why.” Kevin Delaney, the head of road safety at the RAC Foundation, said: “We are concerned that some partnerships will conceal cameras and risk losing the trust of motorists. It makes sense for cameras to be yellow because it slows people down at accident blackspots.” Brake, a road safety charity, welcomed the new flexibility for partnerships. Mary Williams, its chief executive, said: “Requiring casualties before action is abhorrent and results in needless deaths. We welcome the opportunity for covert enforcement because too many motorists simply slow down briefly for a yellow camera.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockys96 Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 bollox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 outside schools yes! on motorways and major trunk roads- bollox Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethr Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Outside schools, yes! On motorways and major trunk roads- bollox. Agreed, but they will continue to place the cameras wherever they can catch the most people. Motor Cycle News wrote to every "Safety Camera Partnership" in the country to find out how they justified the camera sites. Many were using accidents which were nowhere near the camera sites as evidence. The best (worst!) was an accident on a cycle path .... so someone falling off a pushbike on a cycle path was used to justify a camera site on a nearby road! In another case, all the accidents were at a junction, but the cameras were some distance away. So why not work out why the junction is a problem, and fix it? A cynic might think it's because redesigning a junction COSTS money, but a camera MAKES money .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 as long as they are sensible about it then I don't see why not? If you speed and get caught then it's tough luck, we all know the laws, and if we choose to break them then that our call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom S Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 I don't Speed.... Anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 It's ridiculous, hidden camera's are not going to cut speeding and/or accidents. If you don't know a camera is there, you won't slow down for it. I stick to the speed limit in towns and villages, and when i'm on the open road I sometimes put my foot down. If I see a camera I slow for it, and then go on my merry way once i'm past it. I know what i'm doing is against the law, but how many people on here do this also? The majority i'm willing to bet. I am also willing to bet on the fact that accidents will increase as a result of this new change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 whats the point of adding more hidden speed cameras? why dont they concentrate on drivers with no insurance, license and all those drunk drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
black cat Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 how many of us are gona be band next year????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted May 19, 2006 Author Share Posted May 19, 2006 It's ridiculous, hidden camera's are not going to cut speeding and/or accidents. If you don't know a camera is there, you won't slow down for it. I stick to the speed limit in towns and villages, and when i'm on the open road I sometimes put my foot down. If I see a camera I slow for it, and then go on my merry way once i'm past it. I know what i'm doing is against the law, but how many people on here do this also? The majority i'm willing to bet. I am also willing to bet on the fact that accidents will increase as a result of this new change. If the camera's hidden then how do you know you're in an accident blackspot? It's no good letting someone speed through an area and get their picture as they plough into a child standing in the road. I'm all for speed cameras outside of schools, shopping centres and the likes, this is going to target the out of city areas where some cars/bikes go at weekends. I was behind a corsa yesterday that was doing less than the speed limit..... but was also weaving in and out of traffic, tail gating and ran a red light (no camera on the lights) - target people doing that as that's how crashes happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 as long as they are sensible about it then I don't see why not? LOL to sensible. Since when have the revenue earners used "sensible" in their planning?....... I can foresee a few of these: So you are driving along and suddenly, at the last minute, see a "hidden" camera. No matter what speed you are doing your automatic reaction is to hit the brakes....the guy behind you is half asleep and doesn't see the camera at all (because now it is not obviously visible)..you have suddenly braked in front of him, "for no reason at all"... BANG!............... Another two more and they can justify the camera.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pump gas pete Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 MMMMM...... We have several cameras on the way to work. One of them,The only death I know of was some years ago , right at the beginning of speed camera placement. Its still there. There is another sited on one of the steepest hills in London. Downhill natch. It is 2oo yds away from a bridge.....a suicide bridge....regular. Suicides will impact the road and presumably become a road death. I am not joking. There is now a new specs camera in the vicinity. The speed limit is 20 miles per hour. 24/7. The only death down this piece of road was when one of the "specially trained, expert," police drivers ploughed pedestrians at the crossing. It is a regular arguement that if you stick to the law then there is no problem. This is true. It would be easier to "stick to the law" if the goalposts stayed still. (mixed metaphors.....luv em!) The truth is I have seen speed limits lowered whilst the technology used in vehicles improve out of all recognition. 70 mph in a merc. van now is NOT the same as 60 mph in a Bedford CA. The standard of driving is lower now than in yesteryear. We have,now , drivers so nervous about being caught by cameras for some petty infringement travelling so slowly they are asleep, creeping around the roads paying about as much attention to their surroundings as a speed camera does to its victim. THIS cause accidents. Unfortunately I have to go and do some work. But this is one subject that REALLY Ps me off. And unfortunately it is also a subject that brings out the sactimonious "I never speed" brigade that believes the State has every right to interfere with every aspect of our existence as "they know best". As a matter of interest I was taught not to walk out in front of cars on the grounds being hit would hurt. I was responsible for my OWN safety. I was 11. As that responsibilty has been taken over by the State in the form of 20 mph speed limits near schools for teenagers up to sixth form you find the stroppy little shites stroll in front of you inviting you to clip them. Are they not responsible for their own safety? Got to go ...will return Monday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 The only good bit about that is: Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, said in December that partnerships would no longer be able to keep the cash from camera fines to pay for more cameras. They will get grants from a central road safety fund to pay for cameras or alternative measures such as new markings or humps..... .....“If a highway authority wants to install more cameras and they have the money there will be nothing to stop them. They may decide to put cameras in places the criteria do not currently allow, such as in villages and around schools.” Hopefully there will be no incentive to put extra cameras up if the local authority isn't going to benefit anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted May 19, 2006 Author Share Posted May 19, 2006 Speed humps are just as bad! Remember up here, ambulance crews were going buts about the state of the speed bumps - slowing them down and also causing a lot of pain for whoever's in the back with broken limbs etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 MMMMM...... We have several cameras on the way to work. One of them,The only death I know of was some years ago , right at the beginning of speed camera placement. Its still there. There is another sited on one of the steepest hills in London. Downhill natch. It is 2oo yds away from a bridge.....a suicide bridge....regular. Suicides will impact the road and presumably become a road death. I am not joking. There is now a new specs camera in the vicinity. The speed limit is 20 miles per hour. 24/7. The only death down this piece of road was when one of the "specially trained, expert," police drivers ploughed pedestrians at the crossing. It is a regular arguement that if you stick to the law then there is no problem. This is true. It would be easier to "stick to the law" if the goalposts stayed still. (mixed metaphors.....luv em!) The truth is I have seen speed limits lowered whilst the technology used in vehicles improve out of all recognition. 70 mph in a merc. van now is NOT the same as 60 mph in a Bedford CA. The standard of driving is lower now than in yesteryear. We have,now , drivers so nervous about being caught by cameras for some petty infringement travelling so slowly they are asleep, creeping around the roads paying about as much attention to their surroundings as a speed camera does to its victim. THIS cause accidents. Unfortunately I have to go and do some work. But this is one subject that REALLY Ps me off. And unfortunately it is also a subject that brings out the sactimonious "I never speed" brigade that believes the State has every right to interfere with every aspect of our existence as "they know best". As a matter of interest I was taught not to walk out in front of cars on the grounds being hit would hurt. I was responsible for my OWN safety. I was 11. As that responsibilty has been taken over by the State in the form of 20 mph speed limits near schools for teenagers up to sixth form you find the stroppy little shites stroll in front of you inviting you to clip them. Are they not responsible for their own safety? Got to go ...will return Monday Well said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oxygene Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 how many of us are gona be band next year?????. If the SCP and the Rozza's get their way ALL OF US!!! why dont they concentrate on drivers with no insurance, license and all those drunk drivers. Exactly, at the age of eleven i was knocked down and nearly killed by a drunk driver, who didnt even get prosecuted (then again this was 1988 and laws were different then i spose!!), Plus my nephew my knocked down 2 years ago by a driver who may not have had insurance on his car, luckily we are both OK, but other accident cause fatalities Sorry rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmark Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 as long as they are sensible about it then I don't see why not? If you speed and get caught then it's tough luck, we all know the laws, and if we choose to break them then that our call. how ever, speed cameras that are hidden are a danger in its self as we are to busy lookking out for them, you dont need to be doing 40 in a 30 you just need to be doing 34mph and if your speedo is not the sharpest then bang your caught. it is not about safety, its all about revenue generation full stop!!!!!!!!!!! the only time that we will be able to say that its for safety is when we actually see an improvement arounfd schools, but in my area in barnsley/rotherham i drive past about 3 primary schools not one single camera, coming from scotland and from edinburgh i can drive on a frequent basis past about 15+ schools and i can say hand on heart that not one single school has a camera anywhere near them,every camera that i know of in edinburgh is on a massive straight the same as the A1 between edinburgh and berwick there is about 6 camera's and they are all on straights with no hidden dips NOTHING to test a driver, but once you get past berwick there is about 3 camera's on a longer stretch of road right down to alnwick, on the A1 they have the signs "next X amount of miles XX amount of casulties in so many years" and guess what on these roads there is not one single camera on these so called balck spots that cause death, surely those areas are in need of cameras? in built up areas, the only thing that slows you down in my opinion (apart from severe speed bumps) is when they have built a island in the lane of traffic making you stop for on coming traffic. but again even they have dangers cause you get the arse holes that mis judge and try there luck, lets just face it i dont think there is anything that can make drivers slow down apart from good old common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 lets just face it i dont think there is anything that can make drivers slow down apart from good old common sense A police car at the side of the road used to work just fine...but that is the expensive option these days in the minds of the authorities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BASHTHEBISHOP Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nothing else for it but to get some illegal camera avoiding plates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now