Speed camera restrictions relaxed

Just heard it on the news that the Police have been given permission to place speed cameras on roads other than those deemed to be accident blackspots. Now that really cheeses me off. Have I been asleep cos I never even heard any debate about them sneaking that one in.

Originally Posted by Well Oiled

Just heard it on the news that the Police have been given permission to place speed cameras on roads other than those deemed to be accident blackspots. Now that really cheeses me off. Have I been asleep cos I never even heard any debate about them sneaking that one in.

I think they snuck this one in under the radar. Really gives the lie to the 'safety camera' myth. Now it's bloody obvious they're just there to make money.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by WRCSixtyThree

Now it's bloody obvious they're just there to make money.

Was that not already obvious?

I was listening to a report on this on the radio. Its not all bad.

They are changing the rules as to how the cash raised is to be spent. Previously the money went direct to the Local Authority who could only spend the money on more cameras. Now the money is to be collected into one national pot and the LA's can make grant bids for this money to be spent on other types of traffic calming, such as automatic overspeed warning signs.

Cameras must be yellow and a clear speed sign must precede it. I for one would be happy to see cameras located outside schools and parks, even if there was no history of accidents, and the removal of some that are on bends just because one fool over-egged it.

Originally Posted by Mogs

I was listening to a report on this on the radio. Its not all bad.

They are changing the rules as to how the cash raised is to be spent. Previously the money went direct to the Local Authority who could only spend the money on more cameras. Now the money is to be collected into one national pot and the LA's can make grant bids for this money to be spent on other types of traffic calming, such as automatic overspeed warning signs.

Cameras must be yellow and a clear speed sign must precede it. I for one would be happy to see cameras located outside schools and parks, even if there was no history of accidents, and the removal of some that are on bends just because one fool over-egged it.

Whilst I agree that the money being collected into a national stash is a good thing, I suspect it's likely that any councils who say 'Can we have some money to put up even MORE cameras please, to make you more money' will be given whatever they want, whilst those who say 'Can we have some money to remove some idiotically placed cameras and implement sensible traffic calming measures in places of real risk, which won't actually generate any revenue' will be told to p!ss off.

And lets face it, none of the cameras are likely to be removed - like the one outside the school near where I work, where there hasn't been an accident in the last five years, and where the school shut in 2005. Yet it's still merrily flashing away.

Who makes the decisions on who gets the £££?

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? ), 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.

Originally Posted by Well Oiled

Just heard it on the news that the Police have been given permission

Just to quickly clarify, the police have next to nothing to do with speed cameras. Their location, use etc is done by local authorities (who I believe often dole it out the 3rd party companies).

Just want to make sure the "credit" is put where it's due.