Go slow: police win the right to camouflage speed cameras

tags · Post by **tags** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:59

Thats right, as of 2007, police will no longer be required to make speed cameras visible.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 89,00.html

Tags

///M_aniac · Post by **///M_aniac** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 09:00

They really mean business now then....

Jules75 · Post by **Jules75** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 09:07

Just when I was starting to "accept" speed cameras.

OK, I can see the point of allowing them to install them in places were there is no history of accidents - no one wants a child to be killed before they put a camera up.

But wha winds me up is that they will try to hide them.

Surely prevention is better detection? If you see a camera you slow down - simple.

garyw · Post by **garyw** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 09:17

same as what Jules has said,
from the article..
He said: “Parents often write to us and ask us to put a camera outside a school because the traffic is so dangerous. It’s very difficult to write back and say, ‘Please let us know when your son is killed and then we can consider putting a camera there.’ ”
on that basis I agree with speed camera's

it will do nothing for trust towards the police knowing they are now hiding..
They are being given the funds surley to try and find fixes for the blackspots and dangerous roads, but I'm guessing that it will be more mobile camera's, to be fair with the GPS detectors most of us know where the normal speed cameras are..

Its about time they started trying to fix the problem rather than blame the drivers all the time...

garyw

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 10:00

I'll play devils's advocate here... well for the first sentence at least.
If you don't know where cameras are you're more likely to drive within the speed limit all the time rather than only where the cameras are, so the roads in theory will be safer.

Trouble is there are lots of stretches of road with 30mph with good visibility ahead, including to the sides such as when there's no parked cars, where IMHO it's safe to drive a little in excess of the limit, instead of crawling along at 30mph.
In that case I prefer to slow down when I see a hazard ahead such as children near the road or a dog on the loose or whatever, becuase setting one's speed according to such hazards, rather than on lampost spacing, would seem to be more sensible.

The problem with cameras is they take away one's choice of driving according to hazards present. Anyway, I'm glad that now they won't have to wait for kids to get injured, or worse, outside of schools or at other potential accident spots, before they are able to put cameras there.

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 10:26

But they're not often sited outside schools - I don't see many. They're more likely to be sited on those stretches of road with ridiculously low speed limits!!!

I also don't believe the reason to site a camera is when a certain number of accidents has occured; there a 2 camera sited on a brand new road that was built near me before it was opened!!! 3 lane road with 40mph limit and no houses/pedestrians with central reservation too

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 10:37

c_w wrote:But they're not often sited outside schools - I don't see many. They're more likely to be sited on those stretches of road with ridiculously low speed limits!!!

I also don't believe the reason to site a camera is when a certain number of accidents has occured; there a 2 camera sited on a brand new road that was built near me before it was opened!!! 3 lane road with 40mph limit and no houses/pedestrians with central reservation too

Yes there does seem to be a certain amount of 'entrapment' with cameras being placed in ridiculously low speed limit areas. Not good for police PR at all.
As regards lack of cameras outside schools.. supposedly that will change now as they'll be able to install them without waiting for accidents to happen 1st.

Alfie · Post by **Alfie** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 10:55

Outside schools?

Yeah, ok, fine, BUT....

1. Why should a 15mph speed limit apply at 2am on a Sunday?
You can bet yer arris that it will.
Speed traps outside schools should ONLY operate during clearly defined periods when pupils are in attendance.

2. What about passing just a teeny-weeny bit of responsiblility onto the schools, parents and pupils to ensure that the delicate little flowers are not actually in the road when there's a car coming?
Why is it ALWAYS down to the driver alone to prevent accidents?

A.

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 11:12

Alfie wrote:Outside schools?

Yeah, ok, fine, BUT....

2. What about passing just a teeny-weeny bit of responsiblility onto the schools, parents and pupils to ensure that the delicate little flowers are not actually in the road when there's a car coming?
Why is it ALWAYS down to the driver alone to prevent accidents?

A.

Good point Alfie.
Also applies to adult pedestrians that slowly saunter across the road as if they are still on the pavement. My attitude to them is.. if they can't be bothered to watch their backs then why should I ?
Still have to slow to let them cross though. Don't want any dents LOL

BiggusLaddus · Post by **BiggusLaddus** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 11:16

depending where you live things will either carry on as they are now, or the roads will be an absolute nightmare to drive on (i'm thinking north wales here.)

there is no way we could possibly expect little kiddies and there parents to take a bit of responsibility for their own actions - not in blairs britain.

anyone remember that other wonderfull idea this government had for accidents between cars and bicycles?? automatically the fault of the car driver no matter what actually happens in each case

How long before we start introducing checkpoints on our roads? any suggestions for names - i think we should use boys names, always liked charlie for example...

pamatspeed · Post by **pamatspeed** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 11:26

Happily we're in shropshire so there aren't many cameras and non round our local area,please let it stay the same.
Here's praying.

Alfie · Post by **Alfie** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 12:26

"They will also be able to install cameras where there is a speeding problem but little history of crashes."

Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but doesn't that simply mean that the speed limit is set too low?

Make the motorway limit 30mph and there will be 'little history of crashes', but there probably will be a 'speeding problem'.
Solution?
Stick up a load of scameras.
Great.
Well done Britain.

Blimey, isn't it about time we saw a bit of common sense return to our land?

A.

SCORPION · Post by **SCORPION** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 12:58

Looks like there will be a lot of motorists looking for cameras and not looking at the road. Of course, when they do spot them at the last minute they will slam on the anchors.

garyw · Post by **garyw** » Tue 21 Feb, 2006 13:12

cnharris wrote:Looks like there will be a lot of motorists looking for cameras and not looking at the road. Of course, when they do spot them at the last minute they will slam on the anchors.

but there response will be along the classic lines of "well if you don't speed you won't anything to worry about"

One of the busiest speed cameras in our area is opposite a school, good idea you thinks, problem is its just after a main merge of traffic coming on to the "ring road"

and you have to "vary" your speed and watch other traffic to get across into the correct lane, then watch for the pedastrian crossing and the kids playing chicken.
So this camera is kept quite busy, not due to mindless drivers speeding in front of a school, but people trying to drive safely..

garyw

PS the locals..... Etone