speed cameras may cause accidents

[shrekky]

Speed cameras 'may cause accidents'


By David Williams Motoring Editor, Evening Standard
24 June 2005


Fresh doubts over the value of speed cameras were raised today after a surge in accidents at sites where they are installed.

Official papers show that the number of crashes rose instead of fell at 70 sites in London.

At 32 speed camera sites there were an average of 48 more accidents involving death or serious injury over 12 months compared with previous years

At 38 traffic light camera sites there were on average 62 more accidents, Association of London Government papers show. An investigation has now been ordered into why the cameras have not cut deaths and injuries. Some could be ripped out.

At other sites engineers will design traffic-calming schemes - in addition to the cameras.

Experts today claimed drivers were "distracted" by cameras and forced to look at their speedometers instead of the road. The alert comes after West Midlands police announced plans to remove 10 cameras and take film out of 150 more after fears they were endangering road safety.

Transport experts are baffled by the rise in accidents at specific sites in London. Overall, cameras cut accidents by 21 per cent, a study by the Transport Research Laboratory shows.

London's remaining 730 speed and red-light cameras have all seen accident levels fall, according to the London Safety Camera Partnership, made up of councils, police and TfL.

The association's report says: "The partnership will review the sites where collisions have increased. The review will include casualty/collision analysis, collision mapping and

speed survey data." Some cameras will be replaced by electronic signposts which, instead of fining drivers, display their speeds.

Each investigation will cost about ?500, costing the partnership ?35,000. A partnership spokesman said possible reasons for the cameras ' failure included rising traffic-levels and accidents caused by factors other than speed. He said there could be "individual reasons" at each site.

Possible solutions include changing street lighting, road markings and junction layouts and re-phasing traffic lights.

The investigat ion has prompted demands for an overhaul of the Government's speed camera policy. Paul Smith of SafeSpeed said cameras were "nowhere near as effective" as claimed.

In 50mph zones policed by cameras, drivers spent so long studying their speedometers that they missed 40 per cent of what happened in the road ahead, he claimed.

Edmund King of the RAC Foundation said: "It is highly worrying that accidents are going up. There could be conflict between motorists who slow down for cameras and the growing underclass of unregistered drivers who do not."

Rob Gifford of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said: " Cameras are sometimes the best answer but not always.




something i have always said,but they wont be taken out or moved as they make to much money !

 

[blassberg]

Pit-Lane

Wonder if manufacturers will ever have to install a 'pit-lane' button in the UK that limits speeds to 30mph.

Wouldn't have the camera / speedo conflict then.

Should be easy for Benz to implement off the speedtronic.

(Maybe they would need a new name else you could opt out if you wore Michelins )

 

[996jimbo]

My car's already got the 'pit lane' thing. It is good for not having to worry about speed, but can be a bit odd when going up / down gradients.

 

[sooper coop]

Scamera Partnerships really take the ****. Especially in wiltshire where they sit on the m4 bridge nicking people doing over 78mph.

 

[turnipsock]

The limit is for 'nicking' is plus 10% plus 2mph.

People react badly to seeing a speed camera, the usual is to stand on the brakes. It's no wonder that the camera are at all the accident black spots.

I think we should be pushing for the autobahn idea of going as fast as you like. The UK speed limits were set in 1961 and i think cars braking systems may have improved a bit since then, what do you think?

 

[shrekky]

you're right turnip, the overwhelming response to a speed camera is to stand on the brakes, and the speed limits were set in 1961,but wasn't it because of the fuel crisis so a speed limit was enforced to kerb use of fuel ? so my dad says,he can remember blasting up and down the M1,no speed limit testing lotus's when he worked for them..lol
I too think autobahn style speed limits should be in place,or at least sort of speed limits you see in some parts of europe,for example........130kmh(80mph) in the dry 110kmh(70mph) in the rain

 

[blassberg]

If they really wanted to reduce accidents at blackspots, why are there not more signs saying accident blackspot and what the hazard is?

 

[sooper coop]

Reason we got a speed limit is a couple of guys took a cobra up the M1 at 180mph and we had a public outcry.

the yanks was to do with economy yet they have the biggest gas guzzlers period.

Turnipsock - think you'll find that applies to the police not the scamera crews.

i dont know for sure but its a sad state of affairs..

 

[Myros]

I drive about on the continent a fair bit

on our hols, and it never surprises me that no matter how fast I go in Germany, someone is always waiting to overtake me. I give up at about 130, as I haven't enough practice at that kind of speed, and my cat-like reflexes aren't up to the fact that I haven't got enough road to stop in.
I drive fast in France and Austria and Czech and Slovak republics, and you guessed it, not fast enough for the locals there either.
Germany is riven with cameras, and the autobahn isn't as fast as you like all over the shop. No sooner have you gotten up to something howlingly fast, when everyone brakes to get back down to 100km/h for another stretch. And just as soon as you settle down, it's wacky races again as they all drag off for the next de-limited bit. They recommend 130km/h, as traffic clumps at lower speeds, and at higher speeds, people can't judge distance as well and it gets dangerous. So it's about the same as over here really. But they do force their lorries over into crawler lanes on uphill stretches, so they ar one up on us.

 

[robbi-wan]

A couple of days ago i was watching some programme on telly about speed camera stuff and apparantley, one of the criteria for siting of camera's is that there have been 4 deaths there!
Now personally i do not have a problem with speed camera's (bear with me...) if the design of the road is such that "accident blackspots" are created, and they are the most effective way to prevent accidents.
My first point is this: If the road in question is 3 miles of straight dual carriageway (with no exits/junctions/hidden entrances) Why is there a camera smack bang in the middle?? (A45 outside coventry). Examples like this provoke a (justifiably) negative response to thier presence and result in standing on the brakes on approach to them.
Secondly: If road safety was that great a priority to those who make decisions affecting us, why are the "accident blackspots" not looked at from a transport design view?? If the design of the road itself is the cause of the danger, why not tackle the cause, rather than persecuting the users of it?

Thirdly: I work on speed limit +10% +2mph as maximum speed to not get Gatso'd !!!! I am told this is how the limits are set and it has not let me down yet......
rob

 

[sooper coop]

Tali-Van

The Association of British Drivers
Talivan Incompetence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of cases of serious errors related to speed camera prosecutions continues to grow.

As the police and safety camera partnerships (aka the Talivan) demonstrate their incompetence, we're keeping a tally:

CockUp Illegal prosecutions Illegal fines
2005 Jun ? London ? Mis-placed SPECS 5,600 £335,800
2005 Jun ? Dorset ? Illegal form <=135,000* <=£8,000,000*
2005 May ? North Wales ? A483 Wrexham Bypass 1,136 £ 68,000
2005 Feb ? Wiltshire ? A303 5,600 £ 336,000
2004 Nov ? North Wales ? Printed signatures 6,500 £ 390,000
2003 Oct ? South Wales ? M4 Newport 2,500 £ 150,000
Total (Not including cases pending*) 42,672 £ 1,279,800
Note: Dates refer to when the cockup first came to notice in the courts or the press, the illegal acts are often many months earlier.

Bungling ineptitude?
Over-enthusiasm?
Deliberately malpractice?
Or sympomatic of the attitude of the police towards drivers?
You decide...


2005 June ? London
5,600 drivers. £335,800.
The London Safety Camera pratnership will have to refund points and fines to some 5,600 drivers after some imbecile put either the SPECS camera or the speed limit signs in the wrong place on Lower Thames Street. The SPECS camera was taking registration numbers outside of the absurd 20mph zone it was supposed to be enforcing.
Evening Standard ? Speed trap fines are scrapped in blunder
SafeSpeed ? London folly - speed camera operations descend into chaos

The cameras record the vehicle registration before it enters the absurd 20mph zone.


2005 June ? Dorset
Up to about 135,000 drivers. Up to around £38 million.
"Standard Dorset police notices have been used since the 1991 Road Traffic Act. It may mean prosecutions have been wrongfully commenced and fines and points wrongfully imposed against Dorset motorists for a number of years.
The potential cost to the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership is pretty staggering."
David McCreath, Solicitor, Bournemouth.
A solicitor has discovered that every speed camera prosecution in Dorset since 1991 may have been illegal. When the police tried to prosecute him, he found that the form they were using did not comply with legal requirements, and his case was thrown out by a judge. The case may have ramifications for every other driver prosecuted for 'speeding' since 1991 by Dorset Police, who could be facing a massive compensation bill.
If you have been so prosecuted, we advise you to contact a solicitor. See the SafeSpeed press release for details of the solicitors dealing with the original case.
Bournemouth Daily Echo ? Speed Law Flaw
Safe Speed ? Speed camera folly in Dorset


2005 May ? North Wales ? A483 Wrexham Bypass
1,136 drivers. £68,000 in fines.
The speed limit was cut from 70mph to just 40mph during roadworks, but ?temporary speed limit warning signs had been put in the wrong place?, More likely the talivan was operating in the wrong place. £68,000 in illegal fines had to be refunded to 1,136 drivers.
BBC ? Speed fines refund after blunder


2005 February ? Wiltshire ? A303
5,600 drivers. £336,000 in fines.
Gross incompetence by the Highways Agency and the Wiltshire & Swindon ?Road Safety? Partnership which led to the unlawful conviction of 5600 motorists has been exposed.
In 2003, roadworks lasting 16 months took place on the A303 at Folly Bottom and a temporary 40mph speed limit was put in place enforced by speed cameras.
Following advice from the ABD, Clair Allison and 27 other drivers took their cases to court after finding numerous illegalities with their prosecutions
Not only were the speed limit signs deficient, but the highway authority had made elementary mistakes in making the temporary traffic regulation orders: one piece of road did not have an order on it at all, and the order on the A303 itself was made under the section that applies to motorways, while the A303 is an all-purpose road.
However, the cases against Miss Allison and others were deliberately dropped so that the speed camera pratnership would not have to automatically refund the £336,000 in fines extorted from 5600 other drivers. This dishonest and corrupt practice has been observed before in other police forces.
If you were prosecuted for exceeding the temporary 40mph speed limit on the A303 in 2003/4, your conviction may well have been illegal, as no such speed limit existed in law.

Barry Culshaw, the defence solicitor in the cases, gave this advice to motorists fined or convicted at the site:
* If you pled guilty or paid a fixed penalty: apply to the magistrates court to have the conviction set aside.
* If you were found guilty after a trial: apply for leave to appeal against conviction out of time to the Crown Court.

Wiltshire Road 'Safety' Pratnership are now asking drivers to contact them. If you have suffered additional cost (e.g. insurance premiums) or hardship (e.g. disqualification, loss of job or business) as a result of their illegal action, be sure to speak to a solicitor about claiming compensation.

Copies of SafeSpeed press releases:
SafeSpeed ? 5,000 Motorists Cheated In Latest Camera Disaster 2005-02-17
SafeSpeed ? Police Crowed Too Soon At Folly Bottom 2005-02-18
SafeSpeed ? Folly Bottom: Misinformation 2005-02-18
The Sun ? Speed cam lift for drivers 2005-02-18
Salisbury Journal ? Speed fines to be refunded 2005-03-03
Salisbury Journal (Letters) ? We didn't `get away with' it 2005-03-16 (Temp URL)


2004 Nov ? North Wales ? Printed Signature
6,500 Drivers. £390,000.
North Wales police had to refund thousands of fines after a judge discovered they'd been printing a signature on forms rather than getting an officer to check and sign each one as the law requires. Judge Derek Halbert slammed North Wales Police for automating speeding prosecutions. Demonstrating once again their contempt for due legal process when dealing with drivers, the police had submitted numerous items of evidence supposedly witnessed and signed by a police officer, yet it was revealed in court that the signature had in fact been scanned and added by computer. The judge described the police procedure as "utterly inappropriate". Once their little game had been uncovered, the police promised to change the procedure. The question is why they introduced it in the first place.
Daily Post ? Brunstrom speeding u-turn 2004-11-11
"North Wales police are reaping the consequences of their heavy-handed conveyor belt approach to highway policing for which they were rightly criticised by Judge Derek Halbert."
David Jones, Solicitor, Llandudno.
The police wrote to 6500 affected drivers to state that their convictions may be flawed.
Daily Post ? Speeding tickets blunder was a 'fiasco' 2004-12-01
Daily Post ? Speeding ticket fiasco 2004-11-26
The Scotsman ? 'Speeders' Invited to Appeal Against Convictions 2004-11-25
BBC ? 'Speeders' Invited to Appeal 2004-11-25


2003 October ? South Wales ? M4 Newport
2,500 Drivers. £150,000 in fines.
In a tale of staggering ineptitude or deliberate malpractice, a speed camera van targetted part of the M4 outside of a temporary 50mph speed limit due to roadworks. Thousands of drivers on the M4 at Coldra near Newport were wrongly fined.
Despite admitting their 'mistake', the arrogant prats refused to allow a blanket amnesty and insisted drivers would have to apply individually to have their points returned and fines refunded.
The Times ? Drivers not told of speed trap error 2003-10-23


Our Advice
If you are caught by a speed camera always check that the speed limit was legal, and that the speed camera van was actually situated within the speed limit. Ask for a copy of the traffic orders related to the speed limit, especially temporary ones.
Above all, don't assume that the police and safety camera partnership know what they are doing, because the opposite is clearly true all too often.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABD Home Page Speed Cameras Talivan Contact the ABD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © Pro-Motor Ltd 2005
First published 2005-06-19
Last updated 2005-06-23
Direct URL for this page:?
http://www.abd.org.uk/talivan_incompetence.htm

 

[shrekky]

I think this goes to show my point.................the biggest reduction in death tolls is in area without scameraships.........death toll rises in n.wales( camera stupid)

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=11161