When is a speed camera not a speed camera?

[DR]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/33873.html

News that the long government tradition of simply renaming unpopular concepts to make them "disappear" or become more palatable to a hostile public, comes with the Department for Transport announcement of the launch of www.nationalsafetycameras.co.uk.

So, in the same way that Windscale nuclear plant became Sellafield (and thereby completely and utterly benign at a stroke), speed cameras are henceforth to be referred to as "safety cameras".

This feeble piece of jiggery-pokery will serve only to further infuriate British motorists who are increasingly convinced that 98 per cent of UK police resources are directed into the lucrative business of fining speeding drivers while octogenarian war veterans are battered in their homes for their life savings by drug-fuelled illegal immigrants who act with complete impunity.

It is, of course, completely scurrilous to suggest that the Old Bill are waging an all-out war against motorists, as some UK tabloids have suggested, and www.nationalsafetycameras.co.uk is out to put the record straight.

Naturally, Road Safety Minister David Jamieson is enthusiastic about the site and wasted no time last week reiterating the government's commitment to road safety: "Speed cameras save lives. The Government has demanded that cameras are visible and conspicuous to motorists and placed only in areas with high level of casualties. We expect local camera partnerships [the bodies responsible for administering cameras] to be upfront and transparent in their efforts to curb speeds and save lives."

Hold on a minute, what are those cameras called? Tut tut, David - didn't have your Newspeak dictionary with you at the press conference eh? And, for the record, it was public and media pressure which led to speed/safety cameras being "visible and conspicuous" and placed "only in areas with high level of casualties", rather than hidden in hedges beside any potentially high-earning stretch of road.

What's more, here's a couple of examples of "upfront and transparent", taken from the website's Q&A section:

Q3 - How many 'safety cameras' are there currently in England and Wales?

We have no precise figure. The placing of cameras is a matter for local authorities and the police. Guidance on deployment is provided in Circular Roads 1/92.

The 3000 figure often quoted probably refers to the number of camera housings (as opposed to live cameras). If all mobile sites are included, 5000 would be a closer estimate. However, the majority of fixed housings do not contain cameras and the number of live sites at any time would be in the region of 1000.

Q10 - How many offences do speed cameras deal with per year?

This information is available from the Home Office.

Q11 - If a proportion of the fine revenue from speed enforcement cameras is given to the police how can we be sure that the police focus will not shift to obtaining fines rather solving 'real' crimes?

The use of speed cameras does not need uniformed attendance thus facilitating uniformed resources to be re allocated to other crimes.

Q13 - Is this not another example of "bashing" the motorist?

On the contrary, this will be of benefit to all people, including motorists. Cameras are already shown to save lives - more effective, targeted use of cameras will save even more lives, many of which will be motorists.

Hmm. Rather more illuminating is the site's Hints section, which contains precious little in the way of hints, but does have a mouth-watering gallery of some of the mobile speed-camera units currently roaming the highways of Blighty. We can't help feeling that once the anoraks get wind of this, trainspotting may become last year's "must do" leisure-time activity.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether the Government's rebranding will see an end to enraged speed-jockeys blowing up, shooting and torching static cameras.

Alternatively, driving within the speed limit at all times would resolve the entire issue at a stroke. Sadly, it's clear that this suggestion of moderation is our equivalent of asking an American to hand over his hunting rifle. The right to bear down on other vehicles at high speed is the yardstick by which our democracy is today measured. ®

[Big RICHARD]

Excellent! No more speed cameras! Yey for democracy!
Remember kiddies - speed kills!

Why don't we ban all vehicles, including trains, buses and lorries, as well as cars, because they all travel at speed?

[Big RICHARD]

Sod it! If speed kills, I think we need to put 'safety cameras' on each of the following:

The East Coast main line,
Heathrow Airport, - namely all runways,
The track between London and the Eurotunnel,
All RAF runways,
Silverstone and
Brands Hatch

[[GSV]Trig]

Speed cameras dont save lives is been proven hasnt it, if your speeding then IMO your less likely to be watching the road and stuff than you are watching your speedo, imagine this...

Your late for a meeting, your doing 40 thru a 30 zone, u see a car start to pull out of a sidestreet, you jump on the brakes, swerve call the guy a dick for not watching whats going on and off you go...

Now imagine this...

Your late for a meeting, your doing 40 thru a 30 zone, oh crap theres a camera, on the brakes, lookin at speedo, looking at speedo, looking at camera in rearview mirror, smash, WTF where the hell did that bloody car come from!!!!

The more things they put on the roads like this that'll distract you from doing important things, you know like road awareness, then the more accidents will happen..

And as for the war on motorists, you get points and a fine for speeding, what did the kids down the road get for pulling the wall down at the end of my drive thats criminal damage, what do shoplifters get, how about the drug fueled knobbers that batter and mug some old dude for his pension, but 35 in a 30 will get you points and then u can loose your licence which in a lot of cases means no job, well look on the brightside if u do loose your job at least u can become a drugfueled moron and the law will pretty muich ignore you....

/gets off soap box...

[5lab]

you simply shouldnt have been doing 40 in the first place, then you dont need to worry about cameras, then you wouldnt have a problem

[DR]

It is too easy to speed in cars though, and anyone who agrees either is a woman or doesn't drive enough

[McMav]

Originally posted by David
It is too easy to speed in cars though, and anyone who agrees either is a woman or doesn't drive enough

^^^^


ROFL at woman in quote tbh

[Skii]

ok

Try this - here is a car, its a really special car you see, it has a large explosive device rigged to the speedometer which works by GPS.

If you go over the speed limit, it goes BANG

care to try it out ?

5lab ?

[5lab]

im fully capable of staying under the limit. its easy - remember you dont ever have to drive at the limit. if you cant control your powerful car then you shouldnt have it, simple as that

ps, david is a woman. hahahaah

[Shad]

Since getting done for doing 51 in a 30 zone last week (don't start) I tend to stick the cruise control on in 30/40/50 areas that I don't know or have secluded spots for mobile cameras.

Driving that slowly is incredibly tedious though, I find myself very easily distracted when going that slowly.

Oh and the speeding thing... wasn't as bad as it sounds. Very wide open straight road, perfect conditions (dry, sunny, warm), gits were hidden behind a parked van.

[Rave]

Alternatively, driving within the speed limit at all times would resolve the entire issue at a stroke. Sadly, it's clear that this suggestion of moderation is our equivalent of asking an American to hand over his hunting rifle. The right to bear down on other vehicles at high speed is the yardstick by which our democracy is today measured. ®

LOL! So true. It's all very well moaning about speed cameras- I think they're a piss take- but equally it is pretty easy to stay within the speed limit whatever car you drive. It's not like the cameras go off if you're a fraction over the limit, there's a 10%+3mph margin, so if you get caught you must have been speeding enough to notice.

Rich :¬)

[[GSV]Trig]

Originally posted by 5lab
you simply shouldnt have been doing 40 in the first place, then you dont need to worry about cameras, then you wouldnt have a problem

And theres lots of other things that you shouldnt do as well, but lets not get into that, speeding can be done very easily without realising it, lots of other things are done purposfully and yet most dont end up with the posibility of you loosing your job...

[[GSV]Trig]

Originally posted by 5lab
im fully capable of staying under the limit. its easy - remember you dont ever have to drive at the limit. if you cant control your powerful car then you shouldnt have it, simple as that

What a crock of shyte, driving at 30mph has nothing to do with control, your telling me just cos u can "control" your car at 30 makes you a better driver than someone who does 40 in a 30 zone?
Get your head out your arse!

[Capt Doufos]

Originally posted by Shad
[b]Since getting done for doing 51 in a 30 zone last week (don't start) I tend to stick the cruise control on in 30/40/50 areas that I don't know or have secluded spots for mobile cameras.

I used to do that... but I find you cannot react to the brake as quickly, so I have stopped using apart from on Caridgeways, or when the road is empty. It's a god send on long motorway treks.

[bouncin]

Shad if u think 30 and 40 mph is that tedious why dont you just try running everywhere at that speed then u might see the benefit of using your car sensibly.

i live on a six lane carriageway and watch idiots who think they are gr8 drivers speeding everywhere and basically being irratating. Speed limits are there for a reason.

Trig you say there are other things you shouldn,t do yeah one of them is killing people because ur going to fast. i mean im not bothered if someone is speeding without realising cos they are paying attention to the road or dont see a 30mph sign. But if u knowingly keep flaunting the law you should have ur license revoked. (Not meant for u personally as i dont and will prolly never meet u but as a general statement)

[grizac]

Originally Posted by bouncin

Speed limits are there for a reason.

Yes, I am sure that teams of traffic scientists have studied each road individually and made a tailor made speed limit for every place in the country. The limits usually have nothing to do with reality. Limits are arbitrary and the laws of nature it is practically the same if you do 29.9mph or 30.1mph. In the first case you are ok with the law, in the second case you pay a fine. However, the fine is not representative of the increase in danger (and there is a rule in democracies, that penalties should be proportional to the violations, or no?)

The state will have to fight hard for every inch of freedom it takes away from me. Of course it is "bad" to go fast, but if you punish one extra mile per hour with a huge fine, you are clearly in it for the profits, my beautiful government.