Home
Council Tax
Motoring
Education
Law and Order
Welfare State
Pensions
Rights
Asylum Seekers
P C
Europe
LINKS
gos.com
Isitfair.co.uk
Global Warming
Motoring.
The biter bit
Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Meredydd Hughes was, for two years, head of roads policy for the Association of Chief Police Officers. During that time
he had said “I want to end the the British drivers’ habit of speeding whenever they felt they could get away with it”( I know of two cases where drivers had been convicted in his area one doing 31 mph in a 30 mph zone, the other doing 34 mph).
He also said “If I had my way all cameras would be completely hidden and mobile, if we are serious about speed cameras we will have to think about that”.
In May of this year he was clocked driving at 90 mph on a road in North Wales that had a 60 mph limit. I suppose it’s poetic justice that he has been caught in North Wales, an area controlled by Richard Brunstrom, a fellow chief constable popularly known as ‘ The Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban’ for his hard nosed approach to motorists.
He was fined £300 and given a 42 day driving ban when the case went to court! It would seem his hypocritical views on motorists make his position on the road safety committee of ACPO as well as Chief Constable totally untenable. Will he resign? Don’t hold your breath!
Speed limits in most areas were decided many years ago when the stopping distances for cars were considerably longer than those for modern vehicles. The proliferation of speed cameras takes no account of this fact or that the great majority of drivers drive safely according to the road conditions. What may be a sensible speed limit at busy periods is often a nonsense at other times. That said 50% over the limit must be excessive.
A recent report stated that in only 5% of accidents was exceeding the speed limit a factor. The figure rose to 12% for accidents involving fatalities. The great majority of accidents are caused through inattention of some kind, or people driving too fast for the road conditions, although not necessarily in excess of the speed limit.
The biter bit
Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Meredydd Hughes was, for two years, head of roads policy for the Association of Chief Police Officers. During that time
he had said “I want to end the the British drivers’ habit of speeding whenever they felt they could get away with it”( I know of two cases where drivers had been convicted in his area one doing 31 mph in a 30 mph zone, the other doing 34 mph).
He also said “If I had my way all cameras would be completely hidden and mobile, if we are serious about speed cameras we will have to think about that”.
In May of this year he was clocked driving at 90 mph on a road in North Wales that had a 60 mph limit. I suppose it’s poetic justice that he has been caught in North Wales, an area controlled by Richard Brunstrom, a fellow chief constable popularly known as ‘ The Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban’ for his hard nosed approach to motorists.
He was fined £300 and given a 42 day driving ban when the case went to court! It would seem his hypocritical views on motorists make his position on the road safety committee of ACPO as well as Chief Constable totally untenable. Will he resign? Don’t hold your breath!
Speed limits in most areas were decided many years ago when the stopping distances for cars were considerably longer than those for modern vehicles. The proliferation of speed cameras takes no account of this fact or that the great majority of drivers drive safely according to the road conditions. What may be a sensible speed limit at busy periods is often a nonsense at other times. That said 50% over the limit must be excessive.
A recent report stated that in only 5% of accidents was exceeding the speed limit a factor. The figure rose to 12% for accidents involving fatalities. The great majority of accidents are caused through inattention of some kind, or people driving too fast for the road conditions, although not necessarily in excess of the speed limit.
A study by Liverpool University’s civil engineering department found speed cameras did nothing to save lives in built-
Ministers have secretly dumped a study, ordered in 2005 into the ‘side effects’ of speed cameras, into whether they make the roads safer. It has been said the Department of Transport was frightened the study might have embarrassing results and they were more interested in saving face than saving lives.
What is certain is that if the survey had come up with a negative result, it would have confirmed the opinion of many people, that while cameras have raked in millions of pounds in fines, they have had a nil or absolutely minimal impact on road safety.
Because of the changed behaviour of many motorists, slowing down for the cameras and speeding up immediately afterwards (paying less attention to the road whilst looking out for the devices) it is quite possible that any effect they are having on safety is more than offset by accidents caused by inattention.
I would be most interested to hear the justification for the eight changes of speed limit, camera monitored, I recently encountered between the M3 and M4 junctions on the M25.
A business man was fined and banned for a year after being
convicted of speeding several times in six weeks on the same stretch of road (his maximum recorded speed being 42 mph) it would suggest that rather than him being a criminal lunatic, the speed limit on that road was unrealistically low. Whatever, a driver with a previously clean licence, who travelled 20,000 miles a year in perfect safety, driving according to the road conditions, is now off the road. The bland statement, “He shouldn’t have been speeding” (or rather exceeding the speed limit, not the same thing at all), cannot justify the resultant effect on his life, his business and employees, even possibly the loss of his home.
Compare the above with the proposal that a driver with no tax, insurance, MOT or licence, many of whom are illegal immigrants, will be fined £65 if they are on benefits. The law-abiding motorist parked more than 19 inches from the kerb faces an on-the-spot fine of £100. I get the feeling that someone is extracting something! Other than money.
Replacing traffic police with cameras may be a cheap and effective way of raising revenue but in the majority of cases they are dispensing instant injustice. Surely it would be better to have more police on traffic patrol dealing with the estimated two million drivers who are both untaxed and uninsured. Not only do they avoid camera penalties but are more than likely the most dangerous of drivers.
There is, of course, a role for cameras at traffic lights and accident black spots. Having said that, police say the number of cameras is predicted to rise to more than 7,000. Convictions are likewise expected to rise from 2 to 3 million. The Treasury takes about 10% of revenue from the cameras, in 2005 the 3,300 fixed and 3,400 mobile devices raised £120 million.
A survey for the BBC 2 programme ‘Top Gear’ showed that in the 143 top accident black spots in the country, there were just 4 cameras. Who said speed cameras were all about safety and saving lives?
It is now being proposed that hand-held speed recording devices are to be
operated by a new force of civilians who will have to meet targets in order to cover their salaries. Look what happened when the wheel clampers were given free reign. Recently a firm of clampers erected unauthorised no parking signs at a site where free parking had been available for eight years. They then charged £95 release fee and made £6000 in just over an hour. The police refused to intervene saying it was between the motorists and the clampers!
Have your say motoring@turning-worm.com
convicted of speeding several times in six weeks on the same stretch of road (his maximum recorded speed being 42 mph) it would suggest that rather than him being a criminal lunatic, the speed limit on that road was unrealistically low. Whatever, a driver with a previously clean licence, who travelled 20,000 miles a year in perfect safety, driving according to the road conditions, is now off the road. The bland statement, “He shouldn’t have been speeding” (or rather exceeding the speed limit, not the same thing at all), cannot justify the resultant effect on his life, his business and employees, even possibly the loss of his home.
Compare the above with the proposal that a driver with no tax, insurance, MOT or licence, many of whom are illegal immigrants, will be fined £65 if they are on benefits. The law-
Replacing traffic police with cameras may be a cheap and effective way of raising revenue but in the majority of cases they are dispensing instant injustice. Surely it would be better to have more police on traffic patrol dealing with the estimated two million drivers who are both untaxed and uninsured. Not only do they avoid camera penalties but are more than likely the most dangerous of drivers.
There is, of course, a role for cameras at traffic lights and accident black spots. Having said that, police say the number of cameras is predicted to rise to more than 7,000. Convictions are likewise expected to rise from 2 to 3 million. The Treasury takes about 10% of revenue from the cameras, in 2005 the 3,300 fixed and 3,400 mobile devices raised £120 million.
A survey for the BBC 2 programme ‘Top Gear’ showed that in the 143 top accident black spots in the country, there were just 4 cameras. Who said speed cameras were all about safety and saving lives?
It is now being proposed that hand-
Have your say motoring@turning-
