SPEED CAMERAS

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
 

Derbyshire police were catching a speeding motorist on a busy road in Derby every 20 seconds. The speed limit on the city's ring road at Raynesway was cut from 50 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour while roadworks were carried out. During a two day check, over 1000 drivers were caught speeding on 'safety' cameras, generating at least £60,000 in fines to be invested in more speed, sorry, 'safety' cameras. Highways officials admitted that the high number of motorists caught by the speed camera was probably due to the fact that the speed limit was not clearly shown. Despite the admission that the existing signs had not been effective, anyone issued with a speeding charge would have no grounds for appeal.

The organisation responsible for the speed trap in Derby refused to bow to pressure from outraged motorists caught on camera. Many motorists claimed that, because warning signs were not clear enough, they were unaware the speed limit had been reduced to 30mph, rather than the usual 50mph. But the Derbyshire Safety Camera Partnership, which operates the equipment, said the signage was adequate. Mark Knight, spokesman for the partnership, said, "There will be no grounds for appeal. The signage in that area was correct and complies with all government regulations," warning people could face bigger fines and penalties if they refused to pay. But he added that the partnership would be installing more signs in response to public concern. Why, if the original signs were 'adequate'?

Chief Constable David Coleman later said the fines would be scrapped because of the confusion. He said, "In the interest of fairness and natural justice I accept that some confusion has been caused by the road signs. I am taking the very unusual step of withdrawing the fixed penalty notices issued during the specific enforcement period." Police said motorists who had been issued with a fine would receive a cancellation notice within the next two weeks.

Yet again we have been fed a piece of propaganda by the Derbyshire Safety Camera Partnership. The information we are being given is very questionable, quoting Government research figures in spite of the fact that they actually contradict the claims of the various Safety Camera Partnerships across the country. Alistair Campbell would be proud of the amount of "spin" applied to the campaign. Across the country some £2 million a year is being spent on "communications", or in Derbyshire's case "marketing and publicity". If speed cameras were successful at reducing accidents, the scheme would get all the publicity it could ever want for free!

There is an alternative approach to this, using exactly the same data as the pro-camera lobby, but which challenges virtually every aspect of the use of speed cameras and the obsession with speed limits. I have two questions for Mark Knight, the marketing and publicity officer for the partnership. Firstly, can we see the questionnaire which was used for the survey? I am sure that it will have been very cleverly worded to obtain a favourable response, whether that is the view of the people involved or not. Also, it might be pertinent to inform us who he actually asked.

A survey of those involved in the partnership is very likely to give a very different response to asking people who have suffered at the hands of our "portrait photographers". Secondly, will he give details of the camera locations used for the alleged 18% reduction in casualties, and the actual figures he has used? The same figures for 12 months later would be very interesting, but I doubt that we will ever be given these, because the magnificent results he obtained are not likely to be repeated, and may well actually show an increase in the next year or two.

The recent rash of big yellow signs telling us "It's Better to Arrive Late!" and "Speeding Wrecks Lives" do serve a purpose, but like the whole speed camera campaign, concentrates on the wrong issue. They encourage people to believe that obeying the speed limit is more important than how you drive, that driving dangerously or carelessly is not really that important so long as you are driving below the speed limit. Finally, please note that "Safety Camera Partnership" can be abbreviated to "Scam Partnership!" David Ellis

Mark Knight, officer for the Derbyshire Safety Camera Partnership, claims that last year the number of casualties on roads where safety cameras operate fell by 18%. Can Mr Knight confirm exactly what was the question asked, and, more importantly, what was the introduction to it, that resulted in 86% of people agreeing that they were "in favour" of speed cameras? Did he tell them that since the proliferation of speed cameras the previously plummeting national fatality figures have flatlined, and even appear to be rising?

Did he tell them that many of the original speed camera pilot areas are actually experiencing sharply increasing rates - only some of them originally experienced falls - despite the fact they had generally experienced large upward blips the year before the trials started? Or did he just tell them that if you have a fatality at a particular location one year, you'd expect a "decrease" the next regardless, but the decrease you get with speed cameras is less than you would expect without them? B J Mann

Ministers pledged action after being accused of using speed cameras, which are mostly on safe stretches of road, to raise £17million in fines. They faced anger after it was revealed only 1,000 of the UK’s 4,500 cameras are at blackspots. Transport Minister Tony McNulty has ordered a review of all traps, telling police and council chiefs they can only be used for safety and NOT to raise cash. As part of the review, the automatic three-point penalty for those caught speeding by Gatsos may also be axed and thousands of motorists who break the limit by just a few mph could escape driving bans.

Police plan to set-up spy cameras, to keep an eye on speed cameras after it was revealed that more than 700 speed cameras have been vandalised across Britain by angry motorists. Now plans have been unveiled to put CCTV cameras high above nearly 80 sites in a bid to catch the culprits on film. The cameras, which cost more than £30,000 each, have been burned, pulled down or had their lenses spray-painted.

Safety Camera Partnerships, the group that runs the 4,500 cameras in Britain, want Avon and Somerset Police to test the CCTV scheme which would be funded from fines paid by speeding drivers. The plan has been slammed by the Association of British Drivers as “a waste of money.” Spokesman Tony Vickers said, “They have declared war on motorists and are generating a resistance movement.” An SCP spokesman said, “We are adamant the damage won’t deter us.”

Next >>>