Ceri JC |
01-02-07 09:56 AM |
Bad news indeed, but bear in mind that in practical terms, they've been placing them wherever they like for years.
The original idea that they had to be placed within a given distance (I forget what it was) of an accident blackspot. Now, any sane/moral person would interpret this as meaning if they can't be placed on the accident blackspot (already lot of road markings there, under a bridge, on a hairpin, etc.) you can put them a reasonable distance down the road where it is safer/easier to site one, eg on the straight leading up to it to catch people charging into the blackspot too fast.
The police, however, chose to interpret it slightly differently. I'm sure they understood the spirit of the law, but acted in a lawyeristic "to the letter" form of interpretation.They essentially looked at a map and drew a circle of whatever the accepted distance was and placed it anywhere within there. Even when this meant on parallel or completely unrelated roads. They even used places where there had been accidents on mountain bike trails or bridleways (in which no motor vehicle was involved) to justify the placement of a camera on a nice open stretch of road several hundred metres away.
I know MCN often are slightly biased or sensationalist (to say the least), but the showed a few real life examples of this on maps (so I don't think they were lying in this case), which were shocking. Essentially things like, an extremely dangerous twisty stretch of road/junction has a bad record for accidents. There is ample space well within 100m either side of the danger on the road to site a camera. As most people don't speed through there (perhaps suggesting speed isn't the main cause of accidents after all? :evil:), however, they chose to put the camera on a completely different road where there had never been any accident, but it was a lot more tempting to speed.
|