|
RESEARCH REVEALS SPEED CAMERAS REALLY DO CATCH BAD DRIVERS
A research project conducted in the Midlands reveal s that the more times you have been caught by a speed camera, the more likely you are to be involved in a crash.
The independent research project shows that 64% of motorists with points on their licence have been involved in a collision, compared with 42% who have no points.
The study, developed by Prof Stradling at the Transport Research Institute, Napier University, Edinburgh on behalf of eight Midlands’ safety camera partnerships, will also show an alarming 72% of drivers with four or more points on their licence have been in a crash.
Stradling warns that drivers with penalty points for speeding are far more likely to have an accident than those with a clean licence.
The study also revealed that:
Only a quarter of drivers aged between 25 and 50 actually enjoy driving fast.
Three quarters of drivers consider themselves to be ‘a better driver than most people.’
15% of men aged between 35 and 50 have received at least three speeding tickets.
70% of under 25-year-olds admit to breaking the 30mph limit.
The majority of drivers, especially females, believe that speeding is selfish.
Only one third of drivers who had been involved in a road traffic collision said they drove more carefully after the crash. More worryingly another third said having a crash had absolutely no effect on their driving afterwards.
Economically active male drivers aged between 35 and 50 with larger car engines are most likely to activate a speed camera.
Up to 40% of passengers said that they would never ask the driver to drive more safely.
There are two distinct groups of “boy racers” each with different attitudes towards driving.
The full report is available on http://www.roadsafe.com – click on ‘Events’
NEW SPEED CAMERA PUTS MORE DRIVERS IN THE FRAME
Ben Webster in The Times reported that drivers who try to evade speeding penalties by claiming that someone else was at the wheel will be the target of a new camera that captures a clear image of the driver’s face
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2194624,00.html
NEW SPEED CAMERAS
This just in, direct from a GATSO office.
Digital Speed will be appearing around London over the next few months. All new camera sites approved from February 2006 will now be digital and no longer supplied by Gatso, but a company called Redspeed.
There will be several sites across the capital with a high accident rate in their vicinity that will be converted from wet film technology to digital as part of this programme.
The camera pole is two and a half times the height of the current one to deter vandals, and the head is similar in size to a red light camera. They are still reflective to comply with the current guidelines.
The police camera technicians and the police officers in this office have no control of these new cameras whatsoever.
The cameras can be live 24/7 and 365 days a year. All offences are downloaded via ISDN line direct to a secure computer room at Marlowe House and NIP's will be generated automatically. Due to the quality of the lenses fitted to these cameras, they do not have to use flash during daylight hours.
These cameras have just been installed on the A41 just north of Finchley Road LT Station, north and south.
I suspect they will rapidly take over from GATSO cameras as they need no film or human intervention, and can be left on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I do not know what threshold they will be set at, but ACPO guidelines are at present 2mph + 10%, which means >35 mph in a 30 mph zone.
SPEEDCURB™ - DIGITAL SPEED VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM
The speed of vehicles passing through a monitored section of carriageway is measured by piezo sensors buried in the road surface.
A built-in flash module permits operation at night and operational parameters may be programmed into the unit.
ASTUCIA ANNOUNCES A DISTRIBUTION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH ROADCRAFT AND FLEMING & COMPANY FOR ITS SOLARLITE RANGE OF INTELLIGENT ROAD STUDS.
Astucia has announced the appointment of Roadcraft Safety Products Limited and Fleming & Company as the exclusive distribution partners for its SolarLite range of solar powered intelligent road studs in the UK and Ireland.
RoadCraft and Fleming are the principle suppliers and distributors of road studs throughout the UK, Ireland and continental Europe.
For over 30 years Roadcraft and Fleming have been in the forefront of the development of the road stud and their wealth experience , success, market recognition and knowledge was a key factor for Astucia in making the appointment. http://www.astucia.co.uk
YORKSHIRE FOLLY: POLICE ADMIT SPEED SIGNS FAULTY
According to Leeds Today on Monday 29th May Police have dropped a speeding case admitting that speed limit signs were faulty. Safe Speed demands that all drivers convicted should be immediately refunded and have their licence points removed and compensation paid.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides very clearly for this situation in Section 85, paragraph 4 as follows:
"(4) [Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road,] but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above."
This provision is entirely necessary because if a speed limit is not properly signed, it may not even be possible for drivers to know that a speed limit exists.
Paul Smith of the Safe Speed road safety campaign (www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "We demand that all drivers convicted at this location are immediately contacted, refunded and compensated for any
consequential losses."
"It is all too common for drivers to be convicted despite the fact that speed enforcement procedures are faulty. This is one of a long history of such cases."
"It is unacceptable for the Police to make such mistakes because people's livelihoods depend on their driving licences."
Leeds Today article: http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=39&ArticleID=1531975
Google search for similar incidents: http://www.google.com/search?&q=%2B%22speed+camera%22+%2B%22folly%22
And another: http://www.google.com/search?&q=%2B%22speed+camera%22+%2B%22starcross%22
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=802832006
Wed 31 May 2006
CATCHING THE SPEEDERS OTHER CAMERAS CAN'T
eben harrell
DRIVERS who speed on narrow or remote roads will no longer be able to escape detection, after a Scottish force launched its latest tool to catch those who break the limit - a motorcycle equipped with a speed camera.
Launched by Lothian and Borders Police, the system will use VHS video technology and lacks the tell-tale flash of fixed cameras. Many motorist will not know they have been caught until they receive a penalty notice, police say.
The Honda 650 Deauville will be able to monitor narrow roads inaccessible to speed camera vans. It will target speeding motorists on remote roads in the Borders and narrow roads in Edinburgh.
Police can use mobile speed traps only after two accidents involving deaths or serious injuries over a 5km stretch of road.
Colin McNeil, manager of the Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership, said there were many sites that qualified for monitoring but were accessible only to motorbikes.
He said: "The vans are just too big to be used safely [at many sites] as they could cause an obstruction. The motorbike is an ideal solution."
A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police said the new trap would use more advanced technology than fixed speed cameras. "
The motorbike uses a continuous VHS tape so motorists won't get flashed. Drivers may not know they have been detected speeding until the penalty notice drops through the letterbox."
But the move has angered a Scottish road safety group, which said it infringes civil liberties and would do little to reduce road deaths.
Paul Smith, founder of Inverness-based SpeedSafe, which lobbies against speed cameras, said: "There is certainly a civil liberty issue about this new technology. But, more importantly, it's just another addition to a road safety policy that is clearly failing.
"What we want to see is road deaths going down and that is exactly what we are not seeing. "We should be focusing resources not on enforcing rules but on strengthening driver skills, attitudes and responsibility."
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=802832006 Last updated: 30-May-06 00:50 BST
NO CAMERAS NEAR SCHOOLS
The Bristol Evening Post reports that the "WAR ON SPEED CAMS 'PUTTING KIDS AT RISK'" It is referring to speed camera vandalism near schools carried out by militant group 'Motorists Against Detection'. Safe Speed certainly does not condone camera vandalism, but demands that speed cameras are urgently scrapped to be replaced with sound road safety policies.
Safe Speed's research strongly suggests that speed cameras have failed to make our roads safer. Instead they have replaced worthwhile road safety beliefs and policies and indirectly made our roads considerably more dangerous.
This is true at camera sites as well as elsewhere. Cameras take precious driver attention away from the road ahead and squander it on the camera, the speed limit and the speedometer.
Safe Speed has previously issued a warning to pedestrians not to cross the road near speed cameras because drivers will be paying less attention. This follows exclusive straw poll research that indicates extraordinary amounts of driver attention diverted from the road near cameras.
Paul Smith, of the Safe Speed road safety campaign (www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The assumption that speed cameras make our roads safer in any general way is quite quite wrong. Real road safety depends on human factors - skills, attitudes and responsibilities. Far from improving road safety, speed camera erode the very qualities on which road safety depends."
"Far from saving lives, speed cameras are a deadly mistake and have caused road death reduction to stall."
"All our speed cameras are in the wrong places. They should in the scrap yard."
"The last place in the world that I would place a speed camera is outside a school. We need drivers paying attention to kids, not cameras."
Bristol Evening Post article: Heret
Safe Speed PR: "Don't cross near cameras": http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr142.html
GMP ATTEMPT TO DISOWN THE 'BOOK OF TRICKS'
Following the Advertising Standards Agency [ASA] ruling against Greater Manchester Police's (GMP) 'Book of Tricks', the GMP public relations department telephoned Safe Speed HQ. They asked if we would kindly point out that it was a 'Drivesafe' booklet, not a GMP one.
But the launch publicity clearly claims the credit for GMP, and the efforts of the PR department are a clear attempt to further mislead the public.
Paul Smith, of the Safe Speed road safety campaign ( www.safespeed.org.uk ) said: "Frankly I was disgusted to hear from GMP trying to deflect the blame for the misinformation. They should be ashamed of themselves."
"I hold Greater Manchester Police responsible. They are the 'lead partner' in the camera partnership and claimed credit for the booklet when it was launched. They should pull the plug on the camera partnership and return to real road safety."
"Nobody loves the camera partnerships any more. When the funding changes next year, the DfT will expect them to defend themselves, and the Police are constantly trying to deflect blame onto the camera partnerships. Motorists especially hate the partnerships. Pulling the plug is long overdue. Road safety is suffering substantially because officials are too proud to admit that they got it wrong. It's absolutely shameful."
Notes
Booklet launch publicity: http://www.drivesafe.org.uk/gmpnews.php?Id=4
Greater Manchester Police reveal the secrets of avoiding speeding penalties 18th Oct 2005
Greater Manchester Police have announced the launch of Operation Cheetah their ongoing campaign to save the ordinary motorist from turning a simple speeding ticket into a serious criminal offence.
When a vehicle is detected speeding, the registered keeper of the vehicle is sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP), asking for the details of the vehicle’s driver at the time of the alleged offence. Some motorists try to cheat the system. Cheetah was set-up in response to this growing number of drivers who wrongly believe that lying on this form will get them out of trouble and off the offence they have just committed.
Cheetah is staffed by a group of highly trained officers working within the Central Ticketing Office. Their role it is to investigate any information that appears to be false or fraudulent. In the six months development of the Operation, the officers and staff working on Cheetah have arrested 27 prisoners, all of whom are currently at different stages of judicial process.
A standard speeding ticket is currently £60, with 3 penalty points being endorsed on the driver’s licence. Lying on a NIP is viewed by the Police as perjury, an offence which is punishable by a fine and up to 2 years imprisonment. More complex cheating is deemed to be perverting the course of justice, a much more serious offence which is triable in front of a jury at Crown Court. If found guilty, the punishment could be anything from a substantial fine, to community service or even a lengthy prison sentence.
Head of Operation Cheetah, Chief Inspector Graham Ross says; ‘We are in no way trying to persecute the motorist, but seek to prevent normally law abiding citizens from being drawn into criminality. We are hoping that by making the public aware of Cheetah, we will make these speeding drivers think twice before trying to cheat the system.’
‘We understand that the majority of people on Greater Manchester’s roads are safe drivers but anyone can make an inadvertent mistake and break the speed limit. However, the important thing is that people learn from their mistakes. The vital message for drivers to understand is that speed kills. If everyone took this to heart and slowed down, enormous numbers of lives would be saved!’
To prove that cheating just isn’t worth it, the Operation Cheetah team has created a booklet entitled ‘A Book of Tricks’ which is to be sent out with every NIP. This booklet makes it crystal clear that the Cheetah team are aware of every trick in the book that unscrupulous motorists use to cheat the system by breaking the law. The book even goes as far as to list many of the tricks used and even the dubious sources from which drivers learn them often paying a lot of money to do so.
Drivers should ask themselves, is it worth risking a criminal record & a term in prison just to avoid the £60 fine and 3 points on their licence. If they think it’s worth a gamble, be warned that Operation Cheetah is now watching them closely!
Earlier Safe Speed PR on the ASA ruling: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/177?l=1
About Safe Speed
The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer-turned road safety analyst Paul Smith.
Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 51, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out over 10,000 hours working on the campaign with well over 5,000 of those hours researching the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety. In addition to those 10,000 hours, Paul has funded to campaign to the tune of £10,000.
We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the whole "speed kills" system of road safety.
The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in the first place. Far from saving lives, speed cameras are a dangerous distraction.
Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement of motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is neither safe nor appropriate.
Letter From Mark Young Southampton MAG
Hi all,
I regularly receive a newsletter which had an article that caught my eye today. I thought I had better bring it to your attention.
The link to it is: http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39159747,00.htm
While I don't agree with evasion, ANPR does make mistakes and records can be wrong as DVLA have fairly recently admitted (up to 30% inaccurate).
DVLA are only committing to updating 95% of registration records within
12 days - this leaves 5% outside the seven day window - a very worrying figure indeed. Also the DVLA don't quote a percentage within 7 days, so the number of registrations which may be incorrect within the 7 days may be far higher!
The most worrying aspect about this I feel is, that an agency (DVLA) has taken it upon itself to ask a private firm (NCP) to mete out summary justice by both policing and punishing. Surely this far exceeds DVLA's remit of keeping records and collecting taxes!
I would also have thought NCP were on very dodgy legal ground by accepting the contract. I thought only the criminal justice system was allowed these sort of powers after going through due process.
The most serious part of this is only giving 7 days notice. If you were away on holiday for a fortnight, your car/bike can be taken and scrapped long before you get back with no opportunity to object.
So the big question is if something goes wrong with record keeping or ANPR, and you get clamped/crushed, who is liable? DVLA, NCP or the government - who is underwriting and claims against incorrect confiscation?
Will you be entitled to compensation? This all sounds like it hasn't been properly thought out.
Thanks
|
