|
Speed Cameras and Speed
|
Some Peoples View of Speed Cameras |
|
A question asked by a member recently at a North East Lincs MAG meeting raised the issue regarding a case to be heard on September 27th in the European Court of Human Rights. This related to the 1988 Road Traffic Act and the right to silence and applications have been accepted from 8 motorists.
The question asked was, is MAG following this case and is there an official view on it?
The short answer was yes we are keeping an eye on the case and no we don’t have a position.
A subsequent email conversation with myself, Archi Hipkins; National Network Communications Officer, and Kit from North East Lincs MAG stumbled into what is MAGs position on Speed Cameras and Speed?
MAG has commented many times on the issue of Speed Cameras and Speed and there is a MAG policy as reported in the last issue of Network in 1999. (Here)
However times moves on and as discussed at a recent National Committee meeting brought up by the Southern Region we need a review of MAG Policy and a Position Statement.
What MAG Has Said In The Past
1999 MAG Speed Policy
1. MAG recognises that the public road is not a racetrack. It is neither economically viable nor reasonable that an environment which is 'safe to crash in' should be sculptured to accommodate the competitive aspirations of an irresponsible minority. Roads must be shared and crossed by slow moving and non-powered vehicles or individuals whose vulnerability must be a matter of prime concern.
2.a. MAG recognises that many accidents are caused through the inappropriate use of speed and fully recognise the need for speed limits on public roads. We feel that it is useful to cultivate a public attitude which diminishes the macho associations that speed enjoys and ostracises high-speed risk takers to that same territory of contempt which is occupied by drunken drivers.
2.b. MAG recognises that for speed limits to be respected, their need must be understood. An unnecessary speed limit fosters contempt for the law and breeds an anti-social attitude of non-compliance. We believe that the best way for the police and courts to foster that respect, lies with a slightly revised policy of enforcement and sentencing. Such a policy should reserve the severest penalties for those who have selfishly put the lives of others at risk, rather than one which arbitrarily links penalties to increments of speed in excess of legal limits, irrespective of circumstance. MAG recognise that resentment does arise where motorists feel they have been disproportionately penalised and while it would be unwise to 'send the wrong signals' to the public at large there would seem to be scope for more advice to courts on sentencing in this area.
3. MAG welcomes the dramatic and encouraging reduction in accident occurrence where speed-calming measures have been employed in residential urban side streets, in particular, the reduction in pedestrian and child fatalities.
4. MAG is aware that some motorcyclists are unhappy with the employment of road humps , street furniture and raised cushions, which are intended to slow traffic on residential streets, particularly at intersections. We do understand however, that where the employment of such measures adequately justifies itself and that, as long as PTW's are taken into consideration when these devices are employed, and subject to regular maintenance, no motorcyclist travelling at a reasonable speed in the locations where these devices are installed should have any problem negotiating them.
5. MAG recognises that staying within the prescribed 30mph limit under certain circumstances does not necessarily represent a sufficient duty of care. In many circumstances such as narrow residential streets, particularly in the vicinity of schools, a vehicle may often be travelling too fast for safety even if it is within the prescribed 30mph limit.
6. While MAG would not welcome a blanket reduction of the 30 mph limit across urban areas, we believe that the principle of selectively imposing lower limits, as already introduced in some areas is entirely justified in the interests of saving life. However, lower limits must be realistic and enforceable, otherwise they will be ignored.
7. MAG is not convinced that the current obsession with reducing speed limits on all roads will reduce risk exponentially and opposes a reduction of the national speed limit from 60 mph to 50 mph unless the need to do so is conclusive.
8. MAG is not convinced that 70mph limits on motorways are appropriate for all of today's vehicles but we keep an open mind on the subject and would welcome an independent and objective study to assess the probable consequence of raising motorway limits for some vehicle groups.
9. MAG does not welcome the prospect of in-built engine speed limiters. We do not feel that the case for these has been adequately made and view as a 'Red Herring' the pre-occupation of the media with extreme high-speed offenders. Inappropriate speed is the cause of most accidents and it is in controlling this that we feel effort and resources can best be spent.
2004 Comments
The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG), founded in 1973 to defend the rights of motorcyclists, wishes to state its position with regard to the increasingly widespread use of fixed and mobile speed cameras on UK roads.
While initially keeping an open mind about the cameras’ effectiveness as tools of road safety, MAG is now of the opinion that speed cameras do not contribute significantly to road safety and that their widespread deployment is counter-productive in several ways.
Firstly, UK road accident data since the cameras’ introduction shows a worsening fatality trend that clearly proves cameras do not save lives.
Secondly, misuse of statistics by the camera partnerships has precluded consideration of proven, effective alternatives to cameras as well as non-punitive new technology.
Thirdly, reliance on camera partnerships to implement road safety policy has undone much of the hazard perception work performed by highway engineers and training organizations, whilst eroding respect for speed limits and for the police.
Finally, tens of millions of safe riders and drivers feel persecuted, while an increasing minority of illegal motorists take to the roads with unchallenged impunity.
The present government is attempting to blame responsible road users for the failure of its election promises on transport and for the tragic consequences of replacing dedicated traffic police officers with speed cameras.
Future MAG Policy – Position Statement?
Below is the draft put together by Ian Mutch and for discussion at your group meeting for comments and changes and additions.
The Motorcycle Action Group herein referred to as MAG, recognises the general need for speed limits on roads.
MAG recognise that posted speed limits are set to accommodate the exercise of average capabilities in average conditions.
MAG does not accept that a driver travelling in excess of a posted speed limit is necessarily acting in a dangerous manner.
MAG regrets the emphasis which the Department of Transport has placed on the use of cameras as a means of enforcing speed limits.
MAG considers that the inability of an automated technology like a speed camera to discriminate on the basis of prevailing conditions and driver conduct based on any criteria other than velocity is a serious shortcoming.
MAG regrets the fact that the inability of cameras to discriminate inevitably obstructs the exercise of perfect justice.
MAG regrets the fall in the number of police road traffic patrols which is a function of the increase in camera use. MAG feels that the reduction of road traffic patrols increases the risk of bad drivers evading justice given that they stay within speed limits or are good at spotting cameras.
MAG believes that cameras may have a negative effect on road safety in some circumstances where drivers spend too much time studying their speedometers or visually hunting for cameras when they should be looking at the road from a more objective road safety perspective.
MAG is sceptical of the motivation which determines where cameras are sometimes located. MAG recognise that cameras are too often located where it is anticipated they will provide the greatest revenue rather than where they offer the greatest road safety benefit.
MAG welcomes the code determined by the Road Safety Partnership, and endorses the principle behind its establishment.
Bearing in mind and without pointing out the obvious that the members are the organisation and drive the policy of MAG from the bottom up, as reflected in the MAG Constitution.
Therefore at your group meetings please discuss this issue and feed your replies to your Regional Rep so that an interim policy may be issued and presented at the Annual Group Conference in April 2007 for discussion, any required amendments and ratification.
|
