Re: Gatso camera case
 

It seems it could soon be a camera on every corner,
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/searc...arch&archive=0

(Qoute)
Police chiefs are to be given more flexibility to put speed cameras by roads, even if statistics do not indicate they are dangerous.

The Department for Transport is considering relaxing the rules over where the devices can be installed, after police chiefs said many fatal crashes would be prevented if they had more of a say over the location of cameras.

Under current rules, a fixed camera can be installed only if at least four collisions per kilometre involving death or injury have happened in the past three years. For mobile cameras, it is two collisions. Police must also prove that at least 20 per cent of drivers are breaking the limit.

The news has attracted a mixed reaction in Norfolk, where last year former Chief Constable Andy Hayman and the county council commissioned a report into the cameras following claims they were not all necessary. The report vindicated their existence, despite claims they were merely money-making machines for the police.

Mark Veljovic, chairman of the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, said today: "We welcome the Department for Transport reviewing the current climate. We want to make sure all our resources, not just speed cameras, are deployed in the areas where we can reduce casualties."

A spokeswoman for road safety charity Brake said: "We would be in favour of a relaxation in the rules. At present you cannot have speed cameras outside schools, unless all the criteria are met. In dangerous areas we would like to see the speed limit enforced."

But Captain Gatso, spokesman for anti-camera group Motorists Against Detection, said: "It's all to do with the money. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a multi-million-pound clear profit from speed revenues.

"We are not opposed to speed cameras as such, when they are placed outside schools, in high streets and pedestrian areas, but we are when they are on trunk and main roads."

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said: "The police have had 10 years to get road deaths down with their infernal speed cameras. It hasn't worked †� more than two million fines per year; traffic speeds are largely unchanged and road deaths are rising. Now they want to fiddle around with the placement rules and install more speed cameras.

"Speed cameras don't make the roads safer †� quite the opposite †� and the last thing we need is more.

"The loss of confidence in the police and in official road safety messages is critical. The only way to restore confidence is to scrap the cameras and, while we're at it, let's scrap those responsible as well."

There are currently 18 fixed camera sites and 72 mobile sites in Norfolk.

Police have limited discretion to deploy cameras in areas pinpointed as danger spots by the public, which do not meet all the criteria. But these sites can only be covered for 15 per cent of the total time cameras are used.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "The review will look at all the criteria for camera sites, including the number of cars exceeding the limit, the distance over which the casualties happen and the level and severity of injuries. Some they might want to leave unchanged and some they might want to change."

Any changes would come into force in April next year.
(Qoute)

Re: Gatso camera case
 

no I think the point the copper was making was that he was going to fast to be able to be cope with the possibility that something might happen for example a drunken ass driving out of the pub. you adjust your speed cos you know there are idiots out there.

you drive based on the road condition... weather etc plus other factors such as a higher probablity of there being someone who has consumed alcohol (even if below the legal limit) if you are passing a pub.

just cos drink driving is illegal doesnt mean I wont look out for drink drivers as a walk across a pub car park!

Re: Gatso camera case
 

How do they prove 20% are speeding?

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about what gatsos do and don't do. No matter what we think about gatsos, their use, placement and reason for being there

Breaking the speed limit is an offence and punishable

People aren't really complaining about gatsos, they are complaining because anything that interferes with their disregard of the law should not exist.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I complain about Gatso's, because for the most part they enforce out of date laws.

... and the fact they are machines, and have absoulutly zero tolerance for conditions and the reasons for you breaking that limit. I'd happily accept a fine if the Gatso was placed in a densly populated residential area which was limited to 30 and I was caught doing 50. However, getting caught doing 34 would, I expect be dealt with more lightly by a officer, whereas a camera is cut and dry.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I'll partially disagree with that - some speeding laws are not out of date. 30 mph limits should IMO be ruthlessly enforced in built-up areas, near schools, parks and around hospitals.

However a 70 mph limit on motorways (especially the open, straight ones) is based on technology which was state of the art when the Ford Anglia was the vehicle-of-choice. We have come on a LONG way in car safety since then.

I'm not saying motorway limits should be scrapped - just that they should suit the location and conditions. If there's a stretch of road which is notorious for low sun or bad crosswinds then the limit should control the traffic accordingly.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Whether the law is out of date or not isn't an issue, the law is still the law and must be obeyed. The fact that you may only be driving 2 or 3 mph over the limit should not be mitigation for getting away from it. Try standing 30 yards from the top of a cliff face and walking 32 yards towards it. It's only a little bit too far but you still fall over. :)

A gatso has zero tolerance for conditions. What conditions justify going over the limit?

A gatso has zero tolerance for the reason you are breaking the limit. What reason could you have for going over the limit? If you think that you have a justifiable reason then you can let a court decide rather than paying the fixed penalty. The court can then look at all the facts and decide what action to take.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I agree that the law is to be obeyed at all times - however I'm still free to criticise it.

A gatso having zero tolerance is an dangerous thing - is it fair that I'd get prosecuted for going 2mph over the limit then a year later Rover makes a statement that all the Rover 620ti vehicles made at the same time as mine have a defect which causes a 20% margain of error on speedometer readings? I could be under the impression that I was obeying the limit yet factors outside my control are discovered after the court case which show I was not at fault.

I don't think that's fair. The current 10% plus 2mph margain of error employed by speed cameras is good enough thanks very much.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

The 70 mph national speed limit may have been introduced at a time when vehicles didn't have the same performance as today in respect of top speed, acceleration and braking. There were also far less vehicles on the road in those days. What hasn't changed though is driver reaction times. The roads are a faster changing scenario today than they were when the 70 mph limit was introduced. Drive on any motorway today and you will see many vehicles driving far too close to the one in front. You also see many drivers thinking that they have the performance and personal ability to drive into gaps in faster moving traffic that are really too short to be able to do it safely. They also think that every other driver has the same superhuman reaction times and abilities as they themselves think they have.
__________________

Everyone is free to criticise the law, nobody is disputing the fact. Some of the reasoning though is rather flawed. Any prosecution for speeding is based on technological measurement of the speed which doesn't take into account the accuracy of your speedometer. Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer accuracy to be in the range of -0->+10% which means that the speedometer can be accurate or can overstate the speed but must never understate it. The 10% + 2 mph margin is not there to allow you to travel at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone which some drivers take it to mean.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Recent events round here have finally proved to me that speed limits are a joke. I live a few miles from the M1 J26, and this junction joins the M1 with the A610. If you come off this juntion and head North, you are on a MAJOR trunk road, dual carridgeway, basically in the middle of the countryside (i.e. not a residential area).

Obviously the national speed limit applies - or at least it did, until last week. The powers that be have now slapped a 40mph limit on this road for a mile, then 50mph for another 1.5 miles, then it reverts to 70mph (there is no change in the road state, type or layout at any of these points).

This is a complete joke - this trunk, dual c/w, now has speed limits slower than most of the single c/w roads round here, many of which are in built up areas.

How long I wonder before they decide to install speed cameras to catch all the "unsafe, lunatic" drivers doing 60mph - a speed slower than the former national limit, which as been perfectly acceptable, and safe, for 35+ years.

Is it any wonder that people ignore speed limits when things like this are done.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I'm talking about a defect which the manufacturers did not expect. Why should I penalised for that when I'd be doing everything within my power to stay within the limit?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

And the law will remain the same unless people start complaining... and people aren't going to complain until they are inconvenienced by the law.

That 2/3 mph is hardly going to kill anyone. I assume you drive, and know how easy it is to drift slightly over the limit. In some places a 30mph limit is ridiculously slow... and unless you've got cruise control going above that for even a few seconds takes very little. However, we do need limits... obviously there's got to be a cut off, but the limits need reviewing.. and specific limits that are in place for revenue need scrapping - we get ripped off enough.

Hardly a fair analogy ;).. Considering in 99.9% of cases where you exceed the speed limit by 2/3mph nothing bad will come of it.

OK; Picture a gatso on a long straight dual carriageway. It's 5am in the morning, visibilities great... the road's dry and has been recently resurfaced (As is the case on one close to me). You meet 1 or 2 other cars' on the road, and your trundling along at 90mph in your BMW M5.... A gatso gets you. Fined. Whereas, if this was a copper he'd be able to take into consideration the conditions, and would... in majority of cases tick you off and send you on your way. I'd hope..

Yeah... 'cos the courts are completly unbiased and fair. They're supposed to be, but lets face it.. If the goverment started taking a softer stance on this issue, they'd be doing themselves out of major money. Motorists in the UK are a laughing stock.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Cameras catch speeders and that's how they generate revenue. Stop moaning about bloody cameras. If you disagree with speed limits on certain roads - I have reservations about the 70mph limit on motorways myself - then campaign against them, but don't have a pop at the cameras that catch you while you break the law.

Mobile cameras after a fixed camera? Brilliant idea to catch the idiots who clearly know what the speed limit is but think that if they're not going to get caught its OK to break it. The arrogance is breathtaking, not least if they whinge about it afterwards

Can't prove GATSOs save lives? Well you can do a before and after statistical analysis; when that was done an estimated 100 lives saved based on the historical trend.

Let's face it, those that campaign against speed cameras are precisely those that speed, get caught, get points, get a fine. Well you know what? That's what happens.

Resources? Dealt with. If you don't like the fact that revenue goes to the Treasury and not directly into highway safety or wider policing, campaign for change, but stop whinging about cameras which are highly effective at dealing with this specific offence.

Kids? Yes parents should instil road sense in kids but kids are kids and you can't legislate for their giddyness during play etc. So drivers have a responsibility to be aware of the dangers that children (and others) present and take that into account when determing how they are going to drive. Around here many, many drivers not only flout the limit but swerve, towards the kerb) to avoid speed bumps or drive down the midle of the road to avoid speed bumps (very dangerous for cars turning right from side streets). If a small child chases a ball and is hit by a speeding driver are you trying to say it's the kids fault. Drivers should have more road sense than kids, but often they don't and that arrogant insensitivity has been amply demonstrated here.

Yes other offences - particularly driving without due care etc - need to be targeted and are undoubtedly the cause of many accidents. But that does not mean that cameras are a bad idea because they only catch speeders. If you speed you cannot cope as well with avoiding those driving without due care, kids or any unexpected obstacles. That is surely common sense? And if you don't think speed kills have a word with my paramedic mate who's had to scrape up many a cocky driver who thought he knew better than the authorities what an appropriate speed is.
__________________

Ok, its a limit. To tiresomely repeat the point, that means the maximum which means it should be pretty easy at keeping below it. Of course if you're not paying attention to your speed..... So if speed limits need reviewing, campaign for that reviewe but in the meantime stay within the law or don't whinge when you get caught.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

There is no point campaigning about anything in this country. the government doesn't listen, and in fact if you protest is big enough and controversial enough (eg the Chinese human rights protests) the government will actually have the police stop you from protesting and campaigning.

Democracy, 'New Labour' style.

I found out to my cost that if you make too much of a fuss about cameras and the police attitude to them, the police will simply have you. I effectively had my take away business shut down by the police who reacted to my complaints against them by stopping my delivery drivers EVERY time they left the shop.

Contrary to established wisdom, the police are the enemies of law abiding citizens everywhere.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

....and a car emerges from a junction, possibly erratically. Your massive, speeding M5 takes it out. Or you get a blow out. Anything unexpected can happen and if you're driving at speed you're less likely to be able to resolve it

And the Gatso? You're speeding, you're caught. Pay the fine and move on.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

My point is, why can we not also say 'You burgled a house, you're caught. Move on'. We can't.