Speed camera rules change as quick as a flash

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Speed camera rules change as quick as a flash

 

A high number of motorists have no idea that the rules regarding the positioning and colour of speed cameras changed in April this year.

 

Speed, or "safety" cameras, as the Government calls them, no longer have to be painted yellow, or be visible from 60m (200ft), and no longer have to be sited only where there is a history of road accidents. The regulations were relaxed in April after the Government had announced in December that camera partnerships would no longer be able to keep the money generated by speeding fines to pay for more cameras; instead, they'll get grants from a yearly, central road-safety fund of £110million.

 

As part of the new autonomy for the local partnerships, the Department for Transport handed over the regulation of the cameras, saying "the Department does not want to be prescriptive about the conditions to be met for the use of safety cameras." It now merely issues guidelines as to how the cameras should be operated. The guidelines still state that cameras should be painted yellow or covered with "retro-reflective" sheeting, and that they should be visible at up to 60m where the speed limit is 40mph or below, and 100m at all other speed limits. They also still recommend siting the cameras where at least three people were killed or seriously injured in the 36 months prior to the camera proposal being submitted, although the guidelines now state: "While the primary objective for camera deployment is to reduce KSIs [collisions where the person was killed or seriously injured] at known collision locations, cameras can also be beneficial where there is community concern - ie the local community requests enforcement at a particular site because traffic speed is causing concern for road safety, or where there are engineering factors that cannot be implemented in the short term and enforcement is being used as an interim measure."

 

But all the DfT stipulations are guidelines only, and some local partnerships have already said that they find the DfT regulations too restrictive. Meredydd Hughes, head of Roads Policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers (who appeared in court this week after being flashed by a speed camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone), told a national newspaper in June that covert speed cameras would help cut road casualties, and when the proposal to deregulate speed cameras was first aired, 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." Road safety charities, including Brake, also welcomed the possibility of more covert enforcement.

 

The DfT meanwhile says that if local partnerships are found to be abusing their autonomy, it will consider bringing back enforced regulation.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

So if the camera partnerships don't get the money now, who does? Hiding them and putting them where there isn't a history of accidents enforces the commonly held view that they are revenue raisers rather than a safety device.

[Guest James_coDurham]

If speed cameras were really about safety and not a money making scheme, why not give those flashed by them 6 points on their license instead of a 3 and a fine? Oh wait...

[Ketsbaia 0]

If you find one off the beaten track one evening and you have a spare roll of cling film about your person do us all a favour and wrap it round the camera. Apparently it can still take fairly clear photos but can't pick up on small details such as registrations etc.

[Ally 0]

Someone set fire to the one near me recently, the yellow box is now black. Well in.

[RlCO 0]

There was that guy who used to hang a tyre round the thing and fill the rim with petrol. Got caught by parking his car in a layby in front of a camera!

[qscqscqsc 0]

i think they are legitimate vigilante targets. tbh as a non motorist, am a tad indifferent, but i can understand that they are a product of an increasingly abusive system.

Mind i do get sick of the idiot teenagers racing about the streets.

[luckyluke 2]

It was rather sneaky of the government to keep this quiet, but if you're not breaking the law then you don't have anything to worry about.

[Guest James_coDurham]

Give 'em 2 days in the slammer. Oh wait, that'll cost the state money. Basically, they want people to speed, as it makes them rich. Sickening.

[khay 10]

Give 'em 2 days in the slammer. Oh wait, that'll cost the state money. Basically, they want people to speed, as it makes them rich. Sickening.

 

 

I don't think they want people to speed, but since people are going to they might as well make some money from it.

[Guest alex]

Speeding a bit over the limit is a minor offence and, as such, warrants a fine imo. I do think it's just a money making scheme though, which isn't really right. The cameras should be primarily about safety and for that to be the case they should be visible in places where speeding is risky rather than being hidden away.

[Jimbo 175]

If cameras are about safety rather than making money, then lets have them outside schools rather than on A roads and motorways.

[Guest James_coDurham]

Speeding a bit over the limit is a minor offence and, as such, warrants a fine imo. I do think it's just a money making scheme though, which isn't really right. The cameras should be primarily about safety and for that to be the case they should be visible in places where speeding is risky rather than being hidden away.

 

Like the one on the dual carriage way on the A66. What's the fucking point? Hardly get an abundance of school kids crossing it on a morning. If they really didn't want people to speed, why not pass a law that cars have to be electronically restricted to a certain speed whilst being driven on UK roads?

[Guest James_coDurham]

It's similar to America's gun laws. They don't want you to shoot people but will happily sell and tax you on the gun.

[Guest alex]

Speeding a bit over the limit is a minor offence and, as such, warrants a fine imo. I do think it's just a money making scheme though, which isn't really right. The cameras should be primarily about safety and for that to be the case they should be visible in places where speeding is risky rather than being hidden away.

 

Like the one on the dual carriage way on the A66. What's the fucking point? Hardly get an abundance of school kids crossing it on a morning. If they really didn't want people to speed, why not pass a law that cars have to be electronically restricted to a certain speed whilst being driven on UK roads?

I'm essentially agreeing with you mate.

[Fop 1]

So if the camera partnerships don't get the money now, who does? Hiding them and putting them where there isn't a history of accidents enforces the commonly held view that they are revenue raisers rather than a safety device.

 

Not surprisingly the same people that changed the law.

 

Just another road tax only one that criminalises you to boot.

 

 

 

 

It was rather sneaky of the government to keep this quiet, but if you're not breaking the law then you don't have anything to worry about.

 

Sorry but that's rubbish, dangerous driving is one thing, but it's NOT the same thing as going 35mph on a very good road in good conditions at 3 am in the morning when you are only "supposed" to be doing 30mph.

 

I can't think of one camera I've ever seen that's genuinely been placed for "safety" as opposed to a place that catches a lot of drivers out marginally breaking the speed limit due to things like a speed limit change, a steep hill or a good road with a stupidly low limit for no apparent reason.

[Fop 1]

Speeding a bit over the limit is a minor offence and, as such, warrants a fine imo. I do think it's just a money making scheme though, which isn't really right. The cameras should be primarily about safety and for that to be the case they should be visible in places where speeding is risky rather than being hidden away.

 

Like the one on the dual carriage way on the A66. What's the fucking point? Hardly get an abundance of school kids crossing it on a morning. If they really didn't want people to speed, why not pass a law that cars have to be electronically restricted to a certain speed whilst being driven on UK roads?

 

If that's the one I'm thinking off it was placed there because of accidents, the thing is most of those accidents there are caused by shoddy road design that basically makes a river of water run perpendicularly across the carriage way under heavy rain - which can still easily catch you out at the legal speed limit (or a lot lower in fact) if you're not paying attention to the road and conditions.

 

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with big VISIBLE (the idea is surely to slow people down, not catch them WITHOUT slowing them down) ones say outside schools or even at speed limit changes entering towns and such, but this is just going back to the old hide em and rake in the money policy that was changed for VERY good reason.

 

I'm not sure they have to publicise them in a national database now either, in the way they used to have to.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Fop

[RlCO 0]

I read the other day you can fool the start stop cameras by entering in one lane and exiting in the other.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

I read the other day you can fool the start stop cameras by entering in one lane and exiting in the other.

That used to be the case but I think the latest SPECS cameras have got round that.

[luckyluke 2]

So if the camera partnerships don't get the money now, who does? Hiding them and putting them where there isn't a history of accidents enforces the commonly held view that they are revenue raisers rather than a safety device.

 

Not surprisingly the same people that changed the law.

 

Just another road tax only one that criminalises you to boot.

 

 

 

 

It was rather sneaky of the government to keep this quiet, but if you're not breaking the law then you don't have anything to worry about.

 

Sorry but that's rubbish, dangerous driving is one thing, but it's NOT the same thing as going 35mph on a very good road in good conditions at 3 am in the morning when you are only "supposed" to be doing 30mph.

 

I can't think of one camera I've ever seen that's genuinely been placed for "safety" as opposed to a place that catches a lot of drivers out marginally breaking the speed limit due to things like a speed limit change, a steep hill or a good road with a stupidly low limit for no apparent reason.

 

If you speed (and I occasionally do) then you are breaking the law and haven't got a leg to stand on if you're caught. I don't think hidden speed cameras are that bad an idea - if they're visible all the time then people will speed when they can't see a camera. You don't see undercover police officers wearing bright clothing, do you?

 

Your second paragraph is complete nonsense. In my first year, the main road between my hall and university had no cameras. (I'm thinking of the Otley Road stretch between the Oak and the Hyde Park for those who know Leeds). I used to drive my car at ridiculous speeds ( I had only just passed my test ) up that road, as I'm sure many others did. Since they put in the cameras there it is impossible to speed and the road is safer for it.

 

You can stick your anti police, anti establishment bollocks up your arse. Speeding is dangerous, kills people and if you're caught doing it on a city road you deserve everything you get quite frankly.

 

Motorways are another matter, the speed limit should be higher (although nearly everyone drives a 80+ anyway).

[The Fish 11112]

If you speed (and I occasionally do) then you are breaking the law and haven't got a leg to stand on if you're caught. I don't think hidden speed cameras are that bad an idea - if they're visible all the time then people will speed when they can't see a camera. You don't see undercover police officers wearing bright clothing, do you?

 

Your second paragraph is complete nonsense. In my first year, the main road between my hall and university had no cameras. (I'm thinking of the Otley Road stretch between the Oak and the Hyde Park for those who know Leeds). I used to drive my car at ridiculous speeds ( I had only just passed my test ) up that road, as I'm sure many others did. Since they put in the cameras there it is impossible to speed and the road is safer for it.

 

You can stick your anti police, anti establishment bollocks up your arse. Speeding is dangerous, kills people and if you're caught doing it on a city road you deserve everything you get quite frankly.

 

Motorways are another matter, the speed limit should be higher (although nearly everyone drives a 80+ anyway).

 

 

 

You're the man, and not in an American "Yoo da Man!" good kind of way either...

 

damn the man! DAMN HIM!

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

So if the camera partnerships don't get the money now, who does? Hiding them and putting them where there isn't a history of accidents enforces the commonly held view that they are revenue raisers rather than a safety device.

 

Not surprisingly the same people that changed the law.

 

Just another road tax only one that criminalises you to boot.

 

 

 

 

It was rather sneaky of the government to keep this quiet, but if you're not breaking the law then you don't have anything to worry about.

 

Sorry but that's rubbish, dangerous driving is one thing, but it's NOT the same thing as going 35mph on a very good road in good conditions at 3 am in the morning when you are only "supposed" to be doing 30mph.

 

I can't think of one camera I've ever seen that's genuinely been placed for "safety" as opposed to a place that catches a lot of drivers out marginally breaking the speed limit due to things like a speed limit change, a steep hill or a good road with a stupidly low limit for no apparent reason.

 

If you speed (and I occasionally do) then you are breaking the law and haven't got a leg to stand on if you're caught. I don't think hidden speed cameras are that bad an idea - if they're visible all the time then people will speed when they can't see a camera. You don't see undercover police officers wearing bright clothing, do you?

 

Your second paragraph is complete nonsense. In my first year, the main road between my hall and university had no cameras. (I'm thinking of the Otley Road stretch between the Oak and the Hyde Park for those who know Leeds). I used to drive my car at ridiculous speeds ( I had only just passed my test ) up that road, as I'm sure many others did. Since they put in the cameras there it is impossible to speed and the road is safer for it.

 

You can stick your anti police, anti establishment bollocks up your arse. Speeding is dangerous, kills people and if you're caught doing it on a city road you deserve everything you get quite frankly.

 

Motorways are another matter, the speed limit should be higher (although nearly everyone drives a 80+ anyway).

I think if the speed limit was reduced to 20 in built-up areas but at the same time raised to 85 on motorways it would be more realistic. You wouldn't get many complaints from sensible motorists.

[luckyluke 2]

If you speed (and I occasionally do) then you are breaking the law and haven't got a leg to stand on if you're caught. I don't think hidden speed cameras are that bad an idea - if they're visible all the time then people will speed when they can't see a camera. You don't see undercover police officers wearing bright clothing, do you?

 

Your second paragraph is complete nonsense. In my first year, the main road between my hall and university had no cameras. (I'm thinking of the Otley Road stretch between the Oak and the Hyde Park for those who know Leeds). I used to drive my car at ridiculous speeds ( I had only just passed my test ) up that road, as I'm sure many others did. Since they put in the cameras there it is impossible to speed and the road is safer for it.

 

You can stick your anti police, anti establishment bollocks up your arse. Speeding is dangerous, kills people and if you're caught doing it on a city road you deserve everything you get quite frankly.

 

Motorways are another matter, the speed limit should be higher (although nearly everyone drives a 80+ anyway).

 

 

 

You're the man, and not in an American "Yoo da Man!" good kind of way either...

 

damn the man! DAMN HIM!

 

I am anyone but the man.

[Fop 1]

If you speed (and I occasionally do) then you are breaking the law and haven't got a leg to stand on if you're caught.

 

If they make picking your nose illegal then you'd be breaking the law doing it and you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal or that it's a good idea to enforce arbitrary decisions of what is a nose pick (illegal) and what is a nose rub (legal).

 

It's not about that, it is about what is the BEST way to make the roads safer (not the BEST way to make revenue).

 

I don't think hidden speed cameras are that bad an idea - if they're visible all the time then people will speed when they can't see a camera. You don't see undercover police officers wearing bright clothing, do you?

 

It depends if they are there for "safety" or to catch drivers for revenue for drifting marginally over the speed limit.

 

Only in the case of the latter do hidden cameras make a real difference (to coffers).

 

 

In terms of safety the biggest most visible cameras in the world make a difference as they ensure people ARE driving slowly not might, in the future, possibly be driving slowly...........after they've been milked for cash.

 

One removes the danger the other doesn't - which isn't much comfort if you just been knocked down by someone that didn't know a hidden camera was there.

 

 

Your second paragraph is complete nonsense. In my first year, the main road between my hall and university had no cameras. (I'm thinking of the Otley Road stretch between the Oak and the Hyde Park for those who know Leeds). I used to drive my car at ridiculous speeds ( I had only just passed my test ) up that road, as I'm sure many others did. Since they put in the cameras there it is impossible to speed and the road is safer for it.

 

So you are an idiot behind the wheel, that doesn't mean everyone is.

 

It's like saying gambling should be banned just because you happen to be a compulsive gambler.

 

 

I'd actually be for limiting car power for new drivers (although that's not a panacea either) and passenger numbers for new drivers too and even possibly raising the driving age (although age isn't a direct correlation to moronicness behind the wheel).

 

 

 

You can stick your anti police, anti establishment bollocks up your arse. Speeding is dangerous, kills people and if you're caught doing it on a city road you deserve everything you get quite frankly.

 

Speed doesn't kill people (except in so far as the laws of physic), dangerous driving does. And yes a police car doing 50mph in a 30mph residential zone (even with lights and sirens) is FAR more dangerous than someone doing 35mph - as is shown by the ever increasing deaths from police vehicles in the UK.

 

As is someone driving carelessly at 30mph much more dangerous than someone paying attention at 35mph in a 30mph zone.

 

 

Motorways are another matter, the speed limit should be higher (although nearly everyone drives a 80+ anyway).

 

Same rules apply, the laws of physics mean it is more "dangerous" to drive at 80mph than at 70mph (less fuel efficient too), but the majority of accidents at those speeds are NOT related to the speed itself but rather MORONS (like yourself so you say) that can't judge road conditions, adequate braking distances between vehicles for the speed and conditions, or who are just not paying attention etc..

 

And guess what cameras set at a mandatory 70mph limit do NOTHING to stop those morons.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Fop

[Fop 1]

I think if the speed limit was reduced to 20 in built-up areas but at the same time raised to 85 on motorways it would be more realistic. You wouldn't get many complaints from sensible motorists.

 

80-85mph on motorways I very much doubt would raise the accident rate at all.

 

 

20mph zone also can be effective, but on these new estates that already have a mandatory 20mph limit it doesn't seem to make much difference (although it's much more sensible IMO to make certain places 20mph, like housing estates, without necessarily reducing EVERYTHING within a town to 20mph unless otherwise marked).

 

The people that did drive slowly when it was a 30mph limit (because of parked cars obscuring vision and kids being about and such) still do drive at the same speed (15-25mph depending on the conditions) and the morons (like luckyluke) still do 40mph through the place even though it's now a 20mph zone. And they still would with a camera there, they'd just break for the camera and speed up again.