Speed Cameras - Sunday Times Scotland Article

In todays Scottish Edition of the Sunday Times the lead article is a
claim that the Scottish goverment are considering removing up to a
third of the speed cameras in Scotland. Apparently some are sited in
locations which don't meet the criteria of four fatal/serious injury
accidents and eight other injury accidents during the lasr three
years. Ministers are allegedly concerned about public hostility to
the cameras.
Seems a bit like bolting the stable door etc waiting until
several people are seriously injured or killed before dealing with a
problem.
I wonder if any bereaved relatives would have a claim if somebody
(most likely a pedestrian or cyclist) was killed after a camera was
taken away.
Iain

iarocu wrote:

In todays Scottish Edition of the Sunday Times the lead article is a
claim that the Scottish goverment are considering removing up to a
third of the speed cameras in Scotland.

I was at the outlaws today and they had a copy of the Torygrpah motoring
section - which was giving away a camera detector in a competition. As
usual the writers of the piece had gone through some extraordinary mental
gymnastics to justify using a device which has no practical use other than
allowing you to break the law with confidence. The usual bull**** about
how even careful drivers can stray a few mph over the limit - which is true
enough, but has no bearing on the matter as no speed camera is set to
trigger at "a few mph" over the limit.

--
Guy
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
"Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis
propinquus ades"

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

iarocu wrote:


In todays Scottish Edition of the Sunday Times the lead article is a
claim that the Scottish goverment are considering removing up to a
third of the speed cameras in Scotland.


I was at the outlaws today and they had a copy of the Torygrpah motoring
section - which was giving away a camera detector in a competition. As
usual the writers of the piece had gone through some extraordinary mental
gymnastics to justify using a device which has no practical use other than
allowing you to break the law with confidence. The usual bull**** about
how even careful drivers can stray a few mph over the limit - which is true
enough, but has no bearing on the matter as no speed camera is set to
trigger at "a few mph" over the limit.

Amazing that some MPs will introduce EDMs on h***ets but won't act to
ban these things, which frankly have no legitimate use.

A device which warned you of the speed limit at any given time would be
a much better idea - I've done 40 in a 30 before because the sign was
obscured by a lorry or had been turned round on its post 180 degrees by
the local yoof (quite a popular jape in these parts). The "lamppost
rule" doesn't really work nowadays, even if you're among the 10% of
people who claim to understand it. There are long unlit suburban
sections round here that have a 30 limit.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:04:42 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

iarocu wrote:

In todays Scottish Edition of the Sunday Times the lead article is a
claim that the Scottish goverment are considering removing up to a
third of the speed cameras in Scotland.

I was at the outlaws today and they had a copy of the Torygrpah motoring
section - which was giving away a camera detector in a competition. As
usual the writers of the piece had gone through some extraordinary mental
gymnastics to justify using a device which has no practical use other than
allowing you to break the law with confidence. The usual bull**** about
how even careful drivers can stray a few mph over the limit - which is true
enough, but has no bearing on the matter as no speed camera is set to
trigger at "a few mph" over the limit.

Although I'm not familiar with the Torygraph offer, these things don't
normally detect cameras (I think you'd need a fairly sophisticated radar
type sensor for that) - they use a database of camera positions together
with a GPS to identify where they are with respect to the vehicle. Since
the cameras (round here anyway) are painted a bright yellow they are about
as much use as a chocolate fireguard to any driver with his eye open. So
they really are only of any use to those drivers who drive around with
their eyes closed - the market for them round here must be pretty good ...

Mike

On 2003-11-23, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
[...]which was giving away a camera detector in a competition. As
usual the writers of the piece had gone through some extraordinary mental
gymnastics to justify using a device which has no practical use other than
allowing you to break the law with confidence.

I thought most older cameras used induction loops in the road, and newer
ones of course are two cameras a certain distance apart and some number
plate recognition software. I can't see how the latter could be detected,
as they're presumably entirely passive, but surely the magnetic field
off the former isn't _that_ big is it - for a device inside a speeding
car to be able to detect one far enough in advance.

Maybe it is. It would be alternating, so perhaps you can tune a device
with a search coil to pick it up. You'd want to avoid false alarms
from all the other induction loop based sensors. Then again, I used to
wonder how the induction loops in the older cameras, although small,
were accurate enough. I suppose you can get away with a fairly big margin
of error as you have the painted markes on the road and the two photos
as backup.

One point - I've never tested a speed camera, so am probably not the
best person to know about how they work.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

Zog The Undeniable wrote:

A device which warned you of the speed limit at any given time would be
a much better idea

It would if you are interested in obeying the law, but most drivers
apparently aren't. I seriously doubt whether it would be worth putting up
a single camera if you only caught the occasional driver who accidentally
strayed over the limit by 20% (based on a camera set at the lowest known
level in a 30 limit).

The problem is that drivers can't see the danger in speeding, because the
danger is primarily to other people, especially pedestrians and cyclists -
and as I think we've seen in cycle path thread, some drivers have not the
faintest clue how their driving impacts on non-drivers.

--
Guy
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
"Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis
propinquus ades"

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes
iarocu wrote:

In todays Scottish Edition of the Sunday Times the lead article is a
claim that the Scottish goverment are considering removing up to a
third of the speed cameras in Scotland.

I was at the outlaws today and they had a copy of the Torygrpah motoring
section - which was giving away a camera detector in a competition.

Perused the Sunday Mirror in the cafe after the swimming pool this
afternoon.

Amongst the drivel about Michael Jackson, some unknown MP's sexual
shenanigans, pages of rugby coverage etc.
There was an article about speed cameras

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/n...13652613&metho
d=full&siteid=106694

'BRITAIN'S roads will be spied on by an astonishing 20,000 speed cameras
by the year 2013.'

'It heralds a new age of misery for millions of motorists who face
fines, penalty points and lost licences from relatively minor traffic
offences.'

and

'MINISTER ADMITS THEY'RE NOT CUTTING DEATHS'

give a feel for it's angle.

It somehow managed not to mention the easy way to avoid being caught is
not to speed...........

By the side of the article there was a promotion for GBP 110 off a
'radar detector' thing for the car.

The e-mail address on the website to 'TELL US WHAT YOU THINK' is:



--
Chris French, Leeds

"iarocu" wrote in message
om...
In todays Scottish Edition of the Sunday Times the lead article is a
claim that the Scottish goverment are considering removing up to a
third of the speed cameras in Scotland. Apparently some are sited in
locations which don't meet the criteria of four fatal/serious injury
accidents and eight other injury accidents during the lasr three
years. Ministers are allegedly concerned about public hostility to
the cameras.
Seems a bit like bolting the stable door etc waiting until
several people are seriously injured or killed before dealing with a
problem.
I wonder if any bereaved relatives would have a claim if somebody
(most likely a pedestrian or cyclist) was killed after a camera was
taken away.
Iain

I think part of the problem is the public have with speed cameras is twofold

1) The limits aren't always set right, and
b) The powers that be said that speed cameras would only be installed in
accident blackspots.

Now, cameras have appeared on bits of road with good safety records (before
it opened in the case of one on the A6 Clapham bypass!).

I wouldn't object to that, if the government hadn't lied by saying that this
wouldn't happen.

I'm all for speed cameras, but the government needs to be more transparent
and honest about them, instead of hiding behind dodgy stats and "Think of
the childr-u-u-u-n!!!" (as well as sorting out the dodgy limits).

P.s. Did I mention they need to sort out bad speed limits ;-)

"Nathaniel Porter" wrote in
:

snip


I'm all for speed cameras, but the government needs to be more
transparent and honest about them, instead of hiding behind dodgy
stats and "Think of the childr-u-u-u-n!!!" (as well as sorting out the
dodgy limits).

I'm for speed cameras as well, although it's clear they're not always
deployed with anything altruistic in mind.

There's something a bit paradoxical about speed-cameras. Since they're
usually on main roads, I've noticed various speedophiles screaming
around housing estates, residential areas etc. at truly ridiculous
speeds - cos they know there won't be any speed cameras there. It's a
safety measure which can work against overall road safety. I'm not
excusing any speeding ar$eholes at all, BTW.

P.s. Did I mention they need to sort out bad speed limits ;-)

Yes & no. On hols in France (in the Haut Var region) a coupla years
back, I drove through a town with speed cameras. A load of warning signs
for a good 1km before the 'zone', saying things like "your journey will
take a few seconds longer, but a child's life could be saved". Good
thinking IMO. I agree there are some daft, arbitrary speed limits in
effect, but isn't any delay they cause to motorists fairly negligable (a
few minutes) in terms of what they could prevent?

My local rag prints a weekly column called 'speed camera locations' &
posts it on their website. Any other local rags do this? Totally
irresponsible IMHO, i.e. "it's OK to speed, just don't do it at these
locations".

--
Chris Bardell
[Remove favourite mode of transport from email address]

"Chris Bardell" wrote in message
...
"Nathaniel Porter" wrote in
:

snip


I'm all for speed cameras, but the government needs to be more
transparent and honest about them, instead of hiding behind dodgy
stats and "Think of the childr-u-u-u-n!!!" (as well as sorting out the
dodgy limits).

I'm for speed cameras as well, although it's clear they're not always
deployed with anything altruistic in mind.

There's something a bit paradoxical about speed-cameras. Since they're
usually on main roads, I've noticed various speedophiles screaming
around housing estates, residential areas etc. at truly ridiculous
speeds - cos they know there won't be any speed cameras there. It's a
safety measure which can work against overall road safety. I'm not
excusing any speeding ar$eholes at all, BTW.


I can't say I've seen that myself, but I could believe it.

P.s. Did I mention they need to sort out bad speed limits ;-)

Yes & no. On hols in France (in the Haut Var region) a coupla years
back, I drove through a town with speed cameras. A load of warning signs
for a good 1km before the 'zone', saying things like "your journey will
take a few seconds longer, but a child's life could be saved". Good
thinking IMO. I agree there are some daft, arbitrary speed limits in
effect, but isn't any delay they cause to motorists fairly negligable (a
few minutes) in terms of what they could prevent?


Yes and no. Depends on the circumstances. Whilst an iffy urban 20 limit may
only cost a couple of seconds, but the consequences of breaking it could be
more serious, than say, breaking the motorway speed limit, which could save
half an hour over a long enough journey, where the chance of an accident is
slim (assuming you slow down where necessary, and don't take the ****, of
course).

Problem is, the dodgy speed limits are usually on rural roads, not in towns.
Towns and cities tend to set limits too high if anything (mostly by not
reducing minor side streets to 20).

My local rag prints a weekly column called 'speed camera locations' &
posts it on their website. Any other local rags do this? Totally
irresponsible IMHO, i.e. "it's OK to speed, just don't do it at these
locations".


Most (if not all) SCPs publish camera locations on their websites, and
www.bbc.co.uk s local pages often have lists as well.