Anti-Speed Camera Petition

[Jon MW]

http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policyhub/news_item/driving-tired.asp

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=601

FACT

There are laws to cover every part of what can cause accidents - the problem is they are not policed enough or not punished strongly enough.

The fact that they aren't and speeding is doesn't make punishing people who speed a bad thing - it only makes not punishing the people who do the other stuff a bad thing.

i.e.
What you want is better than what we have now
but what we have now is better than nothing.

[byronkincaid]

My main point is that if we all adhere to the road traffic laws there will be fewer accidents and needless death or injury.

I know the thread has gone away from it's original point about the effectiveness of speed cameras, and I know my posts on it are more about irresponsible driving in general and the effects of it, but we cannot pick and choose the laws we want to adhere to and I stand by what I have said on this thread.

For the record I don't believe speed cameras on motorways are particularly useful, however I am a firm believer that on many other roads there should be more of them and they can be a useful tool in making some roads safer. Nothing will make roads safer though than drivers adhering to the laws.

That one sentence says more & makes more sense, than all the Posts & puff on this Thread.

driving slowly on long boring straight roadzzzzz can also be dangerous imo

betcha wouldn't fall asleep if you were doing 120

[tikay]

My main point is that if we all adhere to the road traffic laws there will be fewer accidents and needless death or injury.

I know the thread has gone away from it's original point about the effectiveness of speed cameras, and I know my posts on it are more about irresponsible driving in general and the effects of it, but we cannot pick and choose the laws we want to adhere to and I stand by what I have said on this thread.

For the record I don't believe speed cameras on motorways are particularly useful, however I am a firm believer that on many other roads there should be more of them and they can be a useful tool in making some roads safer. Nothing will make roads safer though than drivers adhering to the laws.

That one sentence says more & makes more sense, than all the Posts & puff on this Thread.

driving slowly on long boring straight roadzzzzz can also be dangerous imo

betcha wouldn't fall asleep if you were doing 120

I confess to not once, but TWICE falling asleep at the wheel - both times, amazingly, on the M62, both times I rolled the car, & I survived without a scratch both times. My pants never survived though.

I have no idea what speed I was doing, as I was asleep......

It's one of many things in my life, now that I'm a lot older, & maybe a bit wiser, that I look back on with huge embarrassment & regret. But it happens. It's tough to live a whole life without ever deviating off the straight & narrow.

I've also had a 6 month Ban for speeding, which did the trick, & slowed me down.

[kinboshi]

http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policyhub/news_item/driving-tired.asp

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=601

FACT

There are laws to cover every part of what can cause accidents - the problem is they are not policed enough or not punished strongly enough.

The fact that they aren't and speeding is doesn't make punishing people who speed a bad thing - it only makes not punishing the people who do the other stuff a bad thing.

i.e.
What you want is better than what we have now
but what we have now is better than nothing.

It's not that speeding being punished is a bad thing - it's that it's become the major focus for the government, media and the law enforcement bodies with regards to road safety, when it quite clearly isn't the main contributing factor in deaths and serious accidents.  

What we have now is fewer police patrols and investment in speed cameras INSTEAD of other forms of policing the roads - policing that would be more effective (i.e. would reduce the number of  deaths and serious injuries).  

[Jon MW]

...

What we have now is fewer police patrols and investment in speed cameras INSTEAD of other forms of policing the roads ...

I don't think they're choosing between them, I think they're just going for the option which is the cheapest and generates the least paperwork.

If they didn't spend the money on cameras I don't think they'd spend it on the other stuff, they'd just use it as savings.

[fatshaft]

Fingers crossed this guy wins today

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Manchester-Speed-Camera-Legal-Ruling-Drivers-Challenge-Convictions-Fines-Penalty-Points/Article/200902115216382?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_3&lid=ARTICLE_15216382_Manchester_Speed_Camera_Legal_Ruling_Drivers_Challenge_Convictions_Fines_Penalty_Points

Lawyers are arguing at Manchester Crown Court that all devices authorised since 1992 are illegal.

They say the law introducing them on to British roads had been wrongly implemented by successive home secretaries.

A successful appeal on the constitutional principle may lead to drivers demanding repayment of an estimated £600m in fines imposed and the annulment of penalty points and bans.

Retired computer engineer Aitken Brotherston, 61, of Lymm, Cheshire, has brought the case on appeal against his conviction for driving 52mph in a 40mph zone in Manchester city centre, for which he received three penalty points and a £250 fine.

Mr Brotherston said he "firmly believed" that the LTI 20/20 Speedscope laser gun which captured his speed provided an inaccurate reading.

Defence barrister Michael Shrimpton said each home secretary since Michael Howard had effectively set up their own scheme of ministerial approval and were wrong to pass such devices as the LTI 20/20 without any debate by MPs.

Andrew Perry, prosecuting, told the court that the change in the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act in 1991 had not left Parliament out of the loop.

MPs and peers had 40 days to object to a published prescribed order which laid down the parameters that a device should meet, he said.

He concluded the legislation had been "followed to the letter".

The appeal panel of Judge Jonathan Gibson and two lay magistrates said it would make its decision only on the facts put before them and not on any mooted implications.

[kinboshi]

Press release from the Association of British Drivers:

Anti Car Extremists Drive 50 Limit Proposals

Driving Skills to be Destroyed to Suit Eco Agenda

Government plans to reduce all rural single carriageway speed limits to 50mph and enforce them with average speed cameras were condemned today by the Association of British Drivers as a "speed bully" policy which signals the end of driving excellence in Britain.

Environmentalists, and others who belive that driving is "anti social at any speed", have long campaigned for lower limits - in 1995 Friends of the Earth said "speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all the glamour out of motoring".

"This is nothing to do with road safety," said the ABDs Nigel Humphries. "Anyone can see that hazards vary along rural roads, and so speeds must vary with them. A blanket 50 mph speed limit does not recognise that roads vary enormously in character and that a limit as low as 50 is totally unnecessary on many rural roads".

For the last fifteen years, whilst road death numbers have failed to improve, the only road safety policies promoted by the government and their advisors have been those which make life more difficult and unpleasant for drivers. In contrast, investment in driving skills or improvements to dangerous roads have been played down.

The over-emphasis on speed as the sole determinant of road safety statistics was always misleading and such a policy has and always will fail to achieve what is intended.

To enforce this new regime we are expected to put up with intrusive monitoring of our driving. This is yet another step in implementation of a "surveillance society" where your every move is monitored and no individual discretion is allowed. Instead of encouraging intelligent and responsible driving, based on the road conditions and the vehicle being used, we have this dictatorial regime that attempts to monitor and control our minute to minute driving standards. It will, of course, have exactly the opposite effect of suppressing the decisions that drivers need to make in this timeframe.

We are pleased that there will be a proper public consultation on this matter, so that the general public have their say on whether they think it is a wise and a proportional response to the problems of road traffic accidents.

"Speed bully" policies have been rolled out by stealth, one limit or scheme at a time, and so largely ignored by the media. Now it is national and "official", we hope that this policy will be exposed for the ignorance that it demonstrates, and that Britain's electorate will tell the government what they think of it.

[TheWhisper]

Not sure if this has been posted before
Thought you might be interested to know that, following the UK Government's freedom of information act,
you can now get access to ALL speed camera offences registered in the last 12 months.
Did you know that every time your car goes past a speed camera, even 1 mph over the set limit, it is registered onto a database?
You only get a ticket if you are way over the limit or (this is the bit I didn't know), if you receive over 10 near misses,
you will be classed as a serial offender and get a ticket the next time you go just over the limit.
This is why you hear of people being done at 34 mph in a 30 mph limit area, whilst others doing 39 do not.
You can check what has been registered against your vehicle at the following web address: http://www.i-database.co.uk
You will be asked for a password but just click on the need a Password link and you will be given one for future use.
Or just enter your car registration.  If there is any data on your vehicle, click on the camera window to see a copy of the photograph

[Robert HM]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8035511.stm

[kinboshi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8035511.stm

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Blatch]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090506/tuk-speed-camera-boss-caught-at-100mph-dba1618.html

I found it amusing

[kinboshi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-10929488

Oh noes!!  It's the end of the world: "Oxfordshire speeding increase after cameras turned off".

No mention of an increase in accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries though from the 'safety campaigners'.  In fact, no mention of accidents at all.  Maybe that would be an interesting metric to consider, considering safety is what they're interested in?

[titaniumbean]

But how much did they lose?

[kinboshi]

Switzerland must make a fair bit from speeding fines:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10960230

Lovely car though.

[lazaroonie]

Switzerland must make a fair bit from speeding fines:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10960230

Lovely car though.

""nothing can justify a speed of 290km/h".

yes, and nothign can justify a fine of a million dollars.

imho of course.