A recently released report from the UK's Ministry of Justice has inspired some organizations to predict the imminent demise of the speed camera. Speaking to The Times, the RAC foundation's executive director claimed a victory for vox populi— even though camera-issued speeding tickets declined by just 40k. "This shows the outcry by millions of drivers has finally paid off and forced councils and police to exercise more discretion," Edmund King pronounced. "There is no doubt that enforcement was getting out of hand, particularly with the use of speed cameras." Yes well, "ring fencing" (letting councils keep the fines to pay for "safety camera" programs) ended the following year. One might also surmise that the 2.1 percent drop can be attributed to motorists losing their license, or learning how to avoid speed cameras, or rising gas prices, or administrative cock-ups, or the margin of error, or something. At least the Times remains skeptical about the fall in the number of drivers disqualified on penalty points (down 2k to 29k). "It is unclear whether this was because drivers slowed down or because they persuaded someone to take the points for them." Oh, and The Newspaper reports that the UK's number one traffic cop, South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes, faces a driving ban after a speed camera clocked his Audi A8 doing 90 in a 60mph zone on the A5 at Halton in North Wales.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Isn't it clear to everyone that almost all drivers travel faster than the posted limit? Even the "number one traffic cop" does. If the natural result for driving faster than what is safe is a possible car crash then why would people slow down for the result of a possible speeding ticket? I think I'm a little more concerned with the crash. That leads to a second point; do people really believe that they're traveling at an unsafe speed? Does every car and driver combination have the same safe speed limit? The answer to both of these questions is of course not! Most people travel at a speed higher than 60mph becuase they believe that they can do it without significantly increasing the danger to their lives. It's pretty clear that the motivation behind speeding tickets is revenue. If the proceedes went to charity instead of the government, I suppose there would be a lot less tickets being given. Speed cameras just equate to greater earning potential. Everybody knows it….just now it's harder for governement employees like cops to hide.
Since we’re being honest, Joseph, the petrolhead aversion to speed cameras has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with enjoying illegal speeds on public roads with little consequence.
I think the motivation behind speeding tickets is that it is relatively easy to measure velocity, it seems a fair way to dole out punishment, it seems to deter accidents and it definitely increases revenue.
I am less worried about ordinary 10 mph-over highway speeders than aggressive drivers that lane change with inches to spare, or tailgate, or even lazy drivers that sit in the left lanes but there must be no easy way to nab them and have it stick in traffic court.
BTW, T Boone Pickens thinks we’ll see $100 oil before we see $80 again.
Since we’re being honest, Joseph, the petrolhead aversion to speed cameras has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with enjoying illegal speeds on public roads with little consequence.
But I’d say that the more honest question is why are we criminalizing perfectly safe, legal behavior.
The safe range of speeds, particularly on limited-access divided highways (motorways, freeways, etc.) is generally based upon the flow of traffic, not on any magic number that came from the legislature. The best speed limit is one that accounts for the flow of traffic (the 85th percentile), but that also accounts for hazards that may not be readily apparent.
If drivers are going 80-90 mph and the accident rate is low, then that is almost certainly a safe speed. The only reason to outlaw it is because we get some benefit from making it illegal, such as extra cash in the coffers.
Donal, I feel the same way. I don’t care for people who drive unsafely. I wish more people were pulled over for unsafe driving than for speeding only. I with the US had more advanced testing for potential drivers. That would have a much better impact on the overall safety of the roads. I think appropriate limits should be in place. Maybe my issue is that I don’t really feel that the law is out there to protect me as much as it is to obtain money. What is socially acceptable and what is legal are two very different things. I don’t appritiate it when cops inforce something on others and don’t follow it themselves (like the cop in this article for example).
I agree with Samir Syed. The nub of the issue is: do you believe there should be speed limits? If so, they must be policed. Rules which are not enforced don’t really exist.
Most anti-speed camera arguments seem to be arguments against speed limits or what they’re set at. That is a different argument. Make that one instead.
Anyway, I’m a fan of people looking after themselves. So the next time our neighbourhood football star races past in his Escalade, three feet away from my daughter and I, doing 70+ and getting air off the speed bumps, I shall write him a polite note. On his vehicle. With my keys. I really should speak to him in person, but I may get stabbed. Or shot – this is London after all :-)
cheers
Malcolm
Most anti-speed camera arguments seem to be arguments against speed limits or what they’re set at. That is a different argument.
They are related, because speed limits seem to based upon revenue generation, not safety.
These lower limits were designed to be violated. We are being set up for a fall. We don’t live in police states, so we have every right and reason to question their motives. Don’t tell us that all of those speed cameras are to protect me, when their real purpose is to attack my wallet.
Proof that the success of Top Gear is in direct relation to the misery imposed on the UK motorist.
Pch101 :
They are related, because speed limits seem to based upon revenue generation, not safety.
Which is my point. You are arguing for higher speed limits. Fair enough, in places I agree, but that’s not an argument against speed cameras, which are surely just the enforcement?
These lower limits were designed to be violated. We are being set up for a fall. We don’t live in police states, so we have every right and reason to question their motives. Don’t tell us that all of those speed cameras are to protect me, when their real purpose is to attack my wallet.
How are you being setup for a fall? Are you not in control of your car?
Anyway, what’s all this sinister ‘police state’ talk? Do you mean a state where laws are enforced? If you don’t enforce laws, you may as well not have them.
cheers
Malcolm
Meredydd Hughes (…) his Audi A8.
Sure it’s a guy? Could be the same situation as with Murilee from jalopnik, only the other way around.
I have to admit though, the Audi A8 seems to make it more likely Meredydd is a guy.
malcolmmacaulay:
There are Escalades in London? Wow, you learn something new every day.
# Ryan Knuckles :
malcolmmacaulay:
There are Escalades in London? Wow, you learn something new every day.
Isn’t TTAC great? :-) Escalades are not very common. London’s more of a Porsche Cayenne place.
I knew you Londoners were too evolved for Escalades. And you get the GT-R Skyline (though in limited production).
I gathered carts at a local Wal-mart in high school when I saw the 2002 Escalade. The old man that was driving it told me that it was his third SUV that year. The first one was a Suburban – not luxurious enough, the second was a 4X4 Escalade – didn’t ride like a Cadillac, and the third was a 2WD Escalade, which was juuust right. Yuck.
and yes, TTAC is great. It has kept me awake at my painfully boring internship these past months.
“South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes, faces a driving ban after a speed camera clocked his Audi A8”
I’m wondering how a police chief constable affords an Audi A8
Malcolm,
The camera scam has been documented. The authorities have been proven to fix situation in order to raise revenues even when it puts lives at risk.
In San Diego a few years ago, the story came out that the time allocated for a yellow light was substantially reduced at intersections where cameras were installed to ticket offenders. Those very same intersections had previously had longer yellows because of the DEATHS from accidents. Those same DEATHS were used to justify the cameras and later the yellows mysteriosly were shortened. Lengthening the yellows had saved lives, and shortening them could likely cost more.
Just a few days ago in Houston the Mayor was caught referring to the “tax revenue” from intersection cameras needing to be properly directed towards funding trauma centers as was promised when the cameras were installed. During the meeting, his honor continuously referred to the money collected in fines as taxes and tax revenues.
Over and above all that, I am continously astounded that no one seems to value time while everyone is concerned about lives. LIFE IS MEASURED IN TIME! What’s the use of saving one life if you have to waste a million man years to do it? At some point, the government has a responsibility for balance. If a million people a year waste an hour along a stretch of highway because the speed limit is too low, that’s tragic. We need a balance, yet we continuously only look at the “safety” side of the equation.
In fact, we don’t even look there. We look where we can fix blame, and then we quit. That’s why we get the government we get. They are all in the business of maximizing the credit they get for doing something positive while avoiding any possible responsibility for failure.
remember, speed limits are for the children.
A lucrative misrepresentation says speed is the casual factor in great numbers of traffic collisions, injuries and fatalities. If that were really the case super highways would be the most dangerous places on earth. They aren’t. Cutting in and out of traffic, following too close and driving too fast for traffic or weather conditions are the real causes, but nobody has invented a device to measure these as handy and profitable as the radar speed timing device. The dirty little secret? In real world use radar guns, while accurate, are hopelessly misleading.
A radar speed timing device determines speed by calculating the return time of an invisible radio beam reflected from a distant object to the transmitter-receiver. Trainee radar operators are told the signal locks onto the lead vehicle. Not so. The signal is returned from the largest object within range, often a mile or more. The speed of a big rig traveling even a great distance behind a car will be measured but in all probability the car driver will be charged with the offense. The radar operator, lacking the foggiest notion what is actually being clocked, will sincerely testify he observed the car traveling faster than the permitted speed.
Radar speed timing devices are subject to a host of errant radio signals including garage door openers, poorly shielded two-way radios and many other RF sources. Shaking a large key ring down signal of a radar speed timing device will rocket the reading off the chart. In fact radar operators confirm device calibration by striking a tuning fork. Certain frequencies produce 30-mph and 50 mph speed readings. Speed radar guns have tracked apartment buildings at 90-mph notwithstanding everybody knows few can go anywhere near that fast, even downhill!
Radar speed enforcement has virtually nothing to do with traffic safety. If it did most radar traps would be situated in high accident areas and school zones, but that is not typically where they are encountered. The logical conclusion: radar speed enforcement is primarily revenue generation. In fact, radar speed timing devices produce a financial bonanza for governments, manufacturers, and insurance companies and are widely and fraudulently accepted by an unquestioning civil service judiciary.
Another profitable fairy tale holds beverage alcohol impaired drivers are the cause of a tremendous percentage of traffic accidents. This is untrue for much the same reason.
Gardiner,
You are absolutely correct about that.
I was twice made victim of this by police who in my opinion took advantage of this to quickly rack up the ticket count. Simply by setting up their trap where a busy highway was in the background, they assured themselves of writing up their quotas as fast as they could write.
The first time, I was a kid, but the second time I was more educated. I got the ticket dropped by the prosecutor without even hiring a lawyer.
I suspected that I was a victim a third time, but by simply driving down the street and observing from a parking lot I learned that this cop was actually not even using his radar gun between stops. He was also taking advantage of a speed limit sign that was knocked over. He was waving people over before they even entered the lowered speed area marked by the downed sign. Lastly, he was back dating the ticket by a day (likely to cover up from taking a day off). Got out of that one also, but the lawyer fee was the same as the ticket.
When an ordinance, law, or regulation is routinely ignored by the majority of the citizenry, it is both unenforceable (except randomly and capriciously, a mockery of justice) and a “bad law”, which should be repealed or ignored (e.g. see Thomas Jefferson’s “Kentucky Resolutions”).
Fallout11,
If I meet Mr. Jefferson in the afterlife, I will have to remember to smack him for not putting that into the Constitution.