Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Speed camera fines fall 20% 'as drivers get wise to traps'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 April 2008
FINES from speed cameras fell by as much as one fifth in some areas of Scotland last year, The Scotsman can reveal.
Camera officials attributed the reduction to more drivers keeping to speed limits, but some motoring groups said they were simply becoming more aware of camera sites.

The figures show the number of drivers being caught by cameras has fallen for th
e third year in a row in some parts of the country, despite there having been no reduction in enforcement efforts.

Lothian and Borders has overtaken Strathclyde – Scotland's largest population area – in producing the most fines, but this is because of an increase in camera sites and enforcement activity.

A total of 114,107 fines were issued from speed and red-light cameras in 2006-7 – generating some £6.8 million for the Treasury. Operation of the cameras is funded by government grants.

The figure was up slightly from 113,566 the previous year, but this was because fines from cameras in central Scotland, which started in 2006, were included for the first time.

Elsewhere, fine levels fell in all other areas except the North-east, because of an increase in mobile camera patrols.

The reductions were greatest in the Highlands, where fines were cut by 20 per cent to 4,695, while they were down by 17 per cent in Strathclyde to 26,288, and down by 15 per cent in Fife to 5,323.

The cameras are operated by safety camera partnerships which comprise the police and other emergency services, local authorities, health boards and the Scottish Government's Transport Scotland agency.

Half of the eight partnerships – in the Central, Fife, Dumfries and Galloway and Northern police areas – operate only mobile camera vans, on designated stretches of road.

The others also have fixed cameras, with Lothian and Borders and Strathclyde operating red traffic light cameras too.

Jim Dale, the director of the Scottish Safety Camera Programme, which oversees the partnerships, said cameras had proved to cut crashes.

He said: "There has been a fall in speeding fines detected by cameras because of better adherence to the speed limits by drivers.

"This is to be welcomed as cameras established under the programme are sited at locations where there is a history of fatal and serious accidents and there is also an identified problem with speeding."

Mr Dale said the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites in Strathclyde had fallen by 60 per cent between 2000 and 2005.

He said in the Northern partnership area, there had been just one fatal crash at its camera sites in the three and a half years since they were introduced, compared with 37 deaths or serious injuries in the previous four years.

However, anti-camera groups have challenged such figures, claiming that crash rates reduce naturally after a spate – a phenomenon known as "regression to mean".

Bruce Young, the Lothian and Borders co-ordinator of the Association of British Drivers, said: "Drivers are increasingly aware of both fixed and mobile camera locations."

However, Neil Greig, director for Scotland of the Institute of Advanced Motorists' Motoring Trust, welcomed the drop in fines. He said: "In our view the best safety cameras slow 100 per cent of the traffic down and catch 0 per cent of drivers.

"There are many reasons why ticket numbers are falling – drivers are getting the safety message in towns, camera sites are now well known, and drivers with some points on their licence are being extra careful.

"Camera partnerships now receive their funding from a central pot of money, so the incentive to generate more tickets has also been removed."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 April 2008 10:03 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

10/04/2008 00:09:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

lobout,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 01:30:19
So that means 20% less money from the revenue generator (oops,sorry, 'safety') cameras. I bet they're really annoyed about that
3

Guga II,

Rockall 10/04/2008 03:34:35
I'll bet they are annoyed that their revenue generators are producing less money. I've no doubt that they will compensate for this by having even more cameras installed. We'll end up with speed cameras every quarter mile, down every road.

Incidentally, does anyone know the legal position of non-police groups being involved in trapping motorists? What legal right or basis is there for these so-called "partnerships" which comprise "the police and other emergency services, local authorities, health boards and the Scottish Government's Transport Scotland agency" to be involved in collecting fines for road traffic infringements?

Is there any legislation to allow these groups, other than the police, to operate these revenue gathering speed traps, and to profiteer from them? Or are motorists being robbed by an illegal operation?
4

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 10/04/2008 04:17:16
Well done, the Safety Camera Parnerships. Pat yourselves on the back. You have been using the itinerant speeders as a whipping boy for all the road casualty figures for years, and now can claim some success. I notice, however, that no such claims are being made for reductions in drunk driving, no road tax, no insurance, no MOT, dangerous driving away from camera sites etc.
With our wonderful, shiny new chancellor in Westminster pushing up road tax to silly levels on the medium sized family cars over the next couple of years, (£300 - £400)some of those who just struggled to put a car, legally, on the road in the past may now just give up, buy a car at auction under a false name, and drive it without tax, MOT or insurance. What the hell, the NEDs have been doing it for years, and mostly got away with it. That's because, with the current reliance on Speed Cameras, the number of real traffic cops has dropped. If there are still the same numbers, where are they? Probably filling in forms, in quadruplicate. To meet targets.
And let's just look at these statistics, coupled with the mantra so often quoted by these so called Safety Partnerships.
"Speed Kills".
Well, 114,000 fines issued means 114,000 speeders. Were there 114,000 deaths or serious injuries? If not, does speed kill or not? Why not rephrase this to "Driving Like a Loony Kills".
I think that if I killed someone every time that I broke the speed limit, I would be the only person left alive in Scotland.
What really upsets me about these self appointed guardians of our roads is the shear insulting of our intelligence. That they believe that their skewed propoganda holds water at all is beyond comprehension.
When the A1 dual carriageway was opened from Edinburgh to Haddington, cameras were installed at the Tranent slip roads and halway between Macmerry and Tranent. There had been no fatalities at any of these points. There was a serious multiple fatality accident at the old Macmerry junction involving a
5

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 10/04/2008 04:25:11
(Oops, ran out of space there. Just as well I wasn't speeding)............transit van, in dense fog.
I would like to see a breakdown of these statistics. Of the 114,000 speeders, as a percentage, how many have had accidents in the past? How many had previous speeding convictions? How did the remaining accident free, first time offenders manage to get away without killing anyone for so long. Was it just blind luck? Or just perhaps, maybe, speed doesn't neccessarily kill after all. Perhaps it's just bad driving, and a camera can't do you for that, yet.
6

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 10/04/2008 05:37:47
You've got it Mad Jock #4 and #5

The police love to address issues that are MEASURABLE like speeding and drink driving.

Crimes like assault, under age drinking and "driving like a looney" which cause more deaths and injuries than the "crimes" above are ignored.

Any crime that forces the police to do some work - perhaps even gather some evidence for God's sake - are pushed to the background because it is easier to stand on the Stonehaven road and monitor a speed camera!
7

john z,

edinburgh 10/04/2008 07:40:31
So, let me get this right, the speedcameras are designed to deter speeding, with the threat of a fine and penalty points. So, drivers have reduced their speed, and less fines are issued. Now, the loony anti- car brigade are complaining that the system worked.

The reality is, that the mass deployment of speed cameras was for nothing than raising money, as according to the dpartment of transport, less than 10% of crashes are caused by speeding anyway. When speed cameras were rolled out, the government lied, and repeatedly told people that speeding caused a third of accidents, which quite frankly, has now been shown to be utter b@ll@cks.

Kind of looks like the easy money grabbing days of these speed cameras are over.

Maybe now, we'll start to a return to REAL traffic police on the street of Scotland, who can target the untaxed, uninsured, drug, drunk and dangerous drivers, which are a much bigger threat than little old ladies going over the speed limit by 2MPH on the way to the co-op.

Speed cameras do nothing for road safety, but they make a lot of money, and make it seem like the politicians are doing something, whilst closing police traffic divisions, with highly skilled officers.
8

fife runner,

10/04/2008 07:44:33
better using the mobile units as drivers do not know when or where they will be about.
9

calum,

10/04/2008 07:54:57
#5 - Bit naughty of you, citing the fatal crash involving the Transit. The road was being built at the time and it was on the single carriageway bit to the east of Bankton junction. Also, the fatalities were caused because the the heavy materials carried in the van were flung about as a result of the crash and the occupants, who were not on seats but loose in the back of the van, were struck. Vans are not designed to carry passengers in that way.
10

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 08:13:16
I can't understand the argument against speed cameras. It you wanted to argue against having speed limits - fair enough, but if you you have laws, then they need to be enforced.
Our cities are full of CCTV cameras to catch people who commit crimes on the street - but you argue that cameras should not be used to catch people who break the law on the road. If you're not going to enforce the limits - what is the point in having them?
11

itsmeisntit,

10/04/2008 09:39:47
maybe thats why there bringing in average speed cameras ,the current ones arent doing wht they used to do .
what should be done is crap driving cameras , thatd soon sort the roads out ,
i drive for a living and it amazes me how many people just dont know the rules apart from there own selfish ones - lane hoggers ,none signals, light hoppers blocking traffic, bad parking , rear enders, the list goes on - the standard of driving nowadays os crap !
12

shivago8,

livingston 10/04/2008 10:06:49
Pity we coudnt get used to the high priced petrol and road tax.
Where is the AA and the RAC why are they not fighting our corner.
13

tam562,

penicuik 10/04/2008 10:13:28
i dont think the reduction is due to drivers knowing the sites of the cameras its more likely due to the police telling drivers where the cameras are going to be as they advertise in this paper and the evening news
14

Malc.F,

france 10/04/2008 10:13:41
On a recent visit to Scotland I drove along the A68 and was delayed by a really slow driver,when at last we got to a safe stretch for overtaking we did just that only to find that at the end of the stretch lurked a speed camera which must have been placed there for just this purpose.
Now I was always taught that when overtaking you should do so safely and quickly which is almost impossible to do without breaking the 50 mph limit.
We subsequently noted that every speed camera on this road was placed at the end of similar overtaking opportunities. At the very least this is cynical.
I later heard a spokesman for a private speed camera company say on the BBC that they never place speed cameras on dangerous or hazardous sites because the natural slowing down of vehicles at these points means that revenue is reduced.
Why do you put up with this.? Safety is meant to be the purpose of speed cameras,not fund raising.
15

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 10:13:44
And have we seen a reduction of fifteen percent in road deaths of KSIs in FIFE?

NO!

Stop the policing on the cheap.

LESS KODAKS, MORE KOJAKS!
16

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 10:21:14
£6.8 million generated from Lothian & Borders ALONE in one year. And it's not about making money?

Speed cameras ARE about making money and nothing else. Crash statistics have actually got WORSE since these stupid machines have been inflicted on us. This is due to the fact that motorists are becoming dumbed down by the incessant propaganda and are not thinking any more. The number of crashes for stupid reasons bears this out.

Regarding getting wise to cameras, here are a few tips:-

Grey box Gatsos:
1. Only type approved to catch vechicles by taking a picture of the REAR.
2. Can cover more than one lane at a time.
3. If any other vehicle is in the field of view, the photos should not be used as evidence.
4. Can also be used to prosecute dangerous driving etc where only a photo is required.
5. Detectable with radar detector.

Tru-Velo:
1. Has a round lens and flash
2. Flash is RED (may be infra-red)
3. Three piezo-electric sensors in road surface
4. Can only catch vehicles coming TOWARDS it.
5. Not detectable electronically.

SPECs:
1. Operate on time/distance principle
2. Can only cover one lane at a time
3. Mounted on overhead gantries
4. Can be avoided by swapping lanes between pairs of cameras---although caution must be used here
5. Can be avoided by driving between lanes sometimes
6. Measure AVERAGE speed
7. Not detectable electronically

LTI 20/20:
1. Used in a manned van in conjunction with a video recorder
2. VERY effective at raising money
3. Detectable by laser detector/jammer, but active jammer required to be of any use
4. Measures your speed in 0.3 sec from a range of over a kilometre.
5. By the time you spot the van, you're nicked (and it's not about raising money?)
6. Often parked illegally in some parts of the country and often vans not marked properly.
7. Interesting legal exercise to get hold of entire tape of enforcement session (but can be costly).
8. This device has been proven to show a wall of a room moving
17

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 10:22:06
No3 Guga11

The safety partnerships will tell you that they are working on behalf of the Chief Constable.

However, they know and we know that civilians have NO RIGHT to enforce moving traffic offences.

Thats why a constable has sufficient training to be able to do so.

The matter of civilians enforcing traffic law was taken up in England but it was refused a judicial review.

We do have the opportunity to take it to the High Court of the Justiciary here in Scotland but it will cost a few bucks.

Bottom line, civilians (or plastic policepersons) should not be doing a job that they are not entitled, by law, to do.

Ref: A number of years ago, a community activist in west fife was fed up with speeders in his 1 street town. He put on his son's yellow hivis jacket and went out with a hairdryer pointing it at cars.
Result: He was done with a breach of the peace!!

18

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 10:22:27
(cont)
8. This device has been proven to show a wall of a room moving at 20mph!

There are other speed cameras around but these are the main ones. Google for "speed camera" on UK sites for more info.

Know your enemy!
19

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 10/04/2008 10:24:10
#9, Calum, I mentioned that particular crash to highlight the fact that road fatalities, no matter what caused them, are being used as an excuse to put up a speed camera. You are quite correct to say that the fatalities were caused by illegal passengers being stuck by an unsecured load, but that is just my point. It was not caused by speeding, in the technical and legal sense, but probably the use of inappropriate speed for the conditions, ie fog. In other words, a speed camera alone would not have either caught the driver before the accident, or indeed prevented it.
20

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 10:26:17
#11:

"It you wanted to argue against having speed limits - fair enough..."

I DO argue against speed limits!

And before some people start, I also argue for far stricter driving tests and tiered licences with an upper limit in the number of times you can take the test(s).
21

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 10:26:30
18 Octane Head

"7. Interesting legal exercise to get hold of entire tape of enforcement session (but can be costly)."

I spent over a year trying to get mine and wished now that I had spent the £1600 for an advocate to go the high court for it.

On day 3 of the trial (yes a 3 day trial with 5 witnesses for speeding on the A92), the operator started to show the court part of the tape that was not disclosed to the defence.

You can get the full story on www.pepipoo.co.uk but its interesting that they will protect the tape with their lives (I wonder what they are hiding)??
22

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 10:32:45
#3:

"Incidentally, does anyone know the legal position of non-police groups being involved in trapping motorists?"

Yes. I do. The only person who can prosecute you for speeding is a Police Officer. That is the reason why there is always a copper present in these talivans and it is also why a copper has to examine every fixed camera photo once they have been put through by the civvy staff for potential prosecution. The copper makes the final decision, not the civvy staff.

Of course, strict adherance to the procedures is something you could ask for evidence for in court. And if it wasn't forthcoming then the smelly stuff would hit the fan in a big way and open the floodgates for people to get their money back and points removed!
23

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 10:39:19
Professor,

If you are a regular on pepipoo, you may be awaref my 3 year (yes 3 year) fight to get the same! It didn't cost me a third of what it did you though and it ended up costing the CPS a great deal more.

The amount of hassle I caused them through insisting they followed every procedure to the letter was beyond belief and during the process, I had at least 4 court hearings adjourned because the CPS had not followed procedures properly.

I didn't end up winning the case, but in a way, I feel that the amount of stink I kicked up, that was a well worthwhile exercise!

If everyone was to do this, then speed cameras would quickly dissappear from our roads.
24

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 10:43:33
Oh and by the way, when they finally got me into a court, they had to employ a barrister to prosecute the case and I also had the chance to give both the copper and the civvy operator a REALLY hard time during my cross-examination of them.

That was another thing I enjoyed doing!
25

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 11:09:27
#28:

"Speed camera here, toll roads in France, we all pay one way or another."

Point taken, but however, you will never loose your licence or have to pay more for insurance by paying road tolls.
26

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 12:34:46
25 High Octane

Yup, my case is on pepipoo as well. 20 months, it took 3 pts and a £125 fine was all it cost me. I could have paid £1600 for an advocate to get me the tape but decided not to.

Something like 8 or 9 IDs arguing about the tape disclosure. Points come off this November so it was beneficial and I would do the same again (but better).

I had the Ronald Kloss prosecuting dream team on mine (Monks and Brown.

BTW, The camera operators in Fife are civvies!
27

wee one,

10/04/2008 12:44:09
#22 Fuel Head,

I am very interested to know what you think the upper limit should be on the number of times you can sit your driving test.

I failed mine 5 times before finally passing, but have been driving for 6 years since then without a single accident or insurance claim.

I kept failing not because I was a bad driver (well, I'd like to think!) but because I got so nervous in the test situation that I kept developing spasms in my legs. It took a hypnotherapy session before I was relaxed enough to pass!

(PS - It wasn't the driving that made me nervous, just the pressure of taking the test.)
28

G,

dundee 10/04/2008 12:45:05
You have to be a complete densoid to get caught by a speed trap camera and I think they are exactly the right people we should be "taxing" more...the stupid, and the reckless
The article has it right about drivers becoming used to the location of the active cameras and one phrase in the piece gives it away "Elsewhere, fine levels fell in all other areas except the North-east, because of an increase in mobile camera patrols."
29

Niadh,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 12:53:38
Professor22.
Good on you for fighting it but I would have raised the point about the evidence not being realised to the defence.
As a point of Law they are not allowed to withhold anything requested.
The part of the arresting caution about using anything in court not previously disclosed goes both ways.

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head
About the spee.. sorry safety cameras you listed.
It has been proven that the grey box gatsos are not accurate against bikes. They have been found to pick up the reflacting signal from other vehicles on the other side going the other way.

Everyone else.

THEY ARE NOT SPEED CAMERAS. How many times do you have to be told.
They are 'Safety Cameras'. They are there for your own protection and the back pockets of the Government.
30

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 13:11:56
Alternative and Professor. You broke the law and you got caught. Get over it - do you have nothing better to do with your time than fight for you "right" to endanger the general public with your irresponsible behavior?

Maybe you would like to campaign for the "right" to break other laws?
31

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 13:18:55
Professor:

I conducted my own defence, with advice from various well-known motoriing lawyers. I was told that I had actually done quite well for an amateur, up against a barrister in court. Shortly afterwards, the speed limit was ruled to be inappropriately signed so I may appeal once again yet!

#31:

"I am very interested to know what you think the upper limit should be on the number of times you can sit your driving test."

I would say three times would be about right---unless someone could prove extenuating circumstances which would require documentary evidence. Sorry!
32

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 13:39:34
34 Scoop

In case you missed how the legal system works in the uk. You are innocent UNTIL PROVED GUILTY in a court of law.

I was proved guilty and BTW well and truly over it.

However, did the Crown prove that the camera operator conduct a second videod calibration test as required by the ACPO Manual and backed by ACPOS. No!

Could the Operator prove "prior opinion" on a vehicle by naked eye over 3/4 mile away.... Eh NO!

My point, which remains unmoved, is that speed enforcement by machines or civilians DOES NOT reduce the KSIs (Kills and Serious Injuries) on our roads.

If you think different then Ill set up a meeting with all the parents of those who have lost their young teenage drivers on Fife's roads and you can explain to them that a civvy enforcing ONE ASPECT of the RTA saved their lives!
33

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 13:45:34
35 High Octane

Well done, I got some good advice from Graham Walker's as well.

BTW Barristers are English, we have Advocates in Scotland and you should appeal within 21 days of sentance.

Reading many of the posts above, I have to laugh at the "hang them high" brigrade who obviously have never knowlingly or mistakingly sped at anytime in their driving career.

The same people appear on pepipoo disgusted that they have been caught doing 34mph in a 30mph claiming they were taking their grannie to hospital. Obviously not realising that speeding is an "absolute" offence. IE your either speeding or your not and that is how the law sees it.. full stop!
34

wee_one,

10/04/2008 13:47:34
#35

How quickly someone passes their driving test is not necessarily a measure of their driving ability. One of my best friends passed her test first time and in her 11 years of driving has never taken her car on a motorway, or outwith a 10 mile radius of her home.

I may have failed a few times but can now confidently take my car anywhere. I would even suggest that the extra lessons taken due to my failures have benefitted my driving!
35

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 13:51:05
32 G, Dundee

Haaaaa, that made me laugh....

Not all speed cameras are ten foot high grey monsters.

The Tallivans can sit and hide whereever they want to and can catch you up to 2000M away. You must be superman to see a cameravan over 2km away. BTW the LTI takes the hit within 0.3 of a second, so, by the time youve raised your foot of the accelerator, its too late.
36

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 13:58:16
36 Prof.

Are you suggesting that having speed limits does not save lives, based on the fact that we have them, yet people are still dying? Perverse in the extreme.

Do you have a similar philosophy on CCTV in city centres helping to apprehend muggers and similar wrongdoers? Any way that technology can help punish lawbreakers (yes - that is what you are) is fine by me. Like I said in my first post - argue against speed limits by all means, use whatever strange evidence that you can dream up. However, currently we do have speed limits and we should use whatever means to punish those that break them?

PS: Any other laws that you think that we should not enforce - bearing in mind that what might not be acceptable to you (theft, assault, murder, etc) might be perfectly acceptable to others. Live in society - abide by it's rules. Break them - get punished. It's simple really.
37

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 14:24:46
40 Scoop

You obviously do not understand the legal system.

Laws (or legislation) are statutory judicial precedents the enforcement of which is left, in Scotland, to the Crown Office and to their respective Procurator Fiscals. The Police investigate any complaints and report on to the PF. The PF deciding on the evidence that they have there will decide if it is to go on to court. Only when you have been convicted in court are you a "law breaker".

Your analagy over CCTV has no bearing on speeding as the camera operator provides primary opinion backed up by the secondary opinion visible to all on the tape.

In Speeding cases the operator still provides primary opinion. BUT in the difference between the grey gatsos and the LTIs, there is no way of easily providing secondary opinion as its the technology of the machine and the way its being operated that makes the difference.

In Short, if the machine is faulty, or is being used incorrectly, it can give false readings. It is the Crown that have to prove that the readings are correct.

FTR, my arguement had nothing to do with speed limits. I hounded Fife Council for 2 years till they put speed bumps across from my house to make sure my young son could cross the road to the park.

I donot have any problem with the enforcement of road offences by Constables of the law. I do have issues in this governments opinion on Policing on the cheap by using plastic bobbies and their reliance on failed technology.
38

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 14:34:59
40 Scoop

Please provide me with evidence that enforcement of speeding reduces the following:

- KSIs for Drunk Driving
- KSIs for Careless Driving
- KSIs for Dangerous Driving
- KSIs for being stupid, tired, stressed etc etc
- KSIs for not having insurance, mot, or road tax

I think you will find (and its already been said above) that the enforcement of speeding does nothing to reduce the above and its only use is a simple measureable providing financial gain to the safety partnerships.

If I am wrong, then why don't the safety partnerships start sending out fixed penalities for all other offences they could catch on video. hmmm, maybe its because they have no remit as it needs to be done by real "constables of the law".
39

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 15:09:41
#42 - Prof. Flawed argument. No one is suggesting that enforcement of speeding impacts on the offences that you suggest. They do reduce speeding - and they free up police time to concentrate on offenses that are not easily detected by technology. It's black and white - exceed the speed limit and you commit an offence. Careless driving, etc are subjective and require "judgement". Personal campaigns such as yours only create wealth for lawyers - and danger for the rest of us. It's time you contributed!


PS: I notice that you are keen on speed reducing measures when they affect your family - but not when they affect other people. Hypocrite! Speed bumps are very effective - but impractical on major roads, therefore alternatives are required.
40

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 15:30:06
42 Scoop

I think someone may have forgotten to take their medication today???

If speeding is reduced then I am a monkey's uncle. Ill go out onto the a92 or m8 ANYDAY and find thousands of "law breakers" as you put it.

The camera operator admitted at my trial that he could fill the camera log in less than 10 minutes on sitting at the a92. BTW that part of the A92 had no Ks and only 5 SIs in 2005.

You mentioned careless driving being subjective but its not. Its in the Road Traffic Act in "BLACK and WHITE". Drunk driving is enforced by "constables of the law" using reliable technology that they have been trained on and they have to adhere to certain operational standards. (Wont be the first DUI that got away with it due to a constable not completing the test correctly).

HERES MY POINT IN SHORT LANGUAGE THAT YOU MAY UNDERSTAND:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6309217.stm
"Campaigners and police have renewed road safety calls after a spate of crashes which claimed the lives of 14 people across Scotland at the weekend.
The largest loss of life was in a crash near Crieff in Perthshire on Saturday in which five people died. "

Lets stop funding plastic bobbies and flawed technology and put it back into funding proper policing!

41

Malc.F,

france 10/04/2008 15:31:48
40 Your comment regarding CCTV is way off the mark. You may be a law breaker when you speed but you are not a criminal of the violent mugger etc. type. To give you an example today a young man pled guilty to causing the deaths of 5 people by dangerous driving, while I have great sympathy with the friends and relatives of the deceased I also feel sorry for this young man who has to live with this for the rest of his life, Thankfully the courts will recognise this and while a custodial sentence is inevitable there is no need to "throw away the key". The point I am trying to make is that speeding of itself is not inevitably going to cause an accident and before we had Speed Cameras the Police were out in force to catch you if you transgressed,now we have a fund raising activity which is nothing to do wiyh safety as the siting of most of these cameras prove.
In conclusion I have been driving for 47 years and when I judge it safe to do so always drive above the limit . I am not proud of this but suffice rto say I have never had an accident,or caused one and I have never been convicted of a motoring offence apart from a fine for an excessively worn tyre.
42

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 15:50:13
Scoop

"Personal campaigns such as yours only create wealth for lawyers - and danger for the rest of us. It's time you contributed!"

Actually, no lawyer, solicitor or advocate benefited from me as I represented myself.

There was no personal campaign. Only an insistance that the Crown proved their case!

My contribution is that I am now a student at law (self paid) as well as holding down a full time job and paying nearly £30k in tax every year, what have you contributed?
43

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 16:48:19
Professor:

"BTW Barristers are English, we have Advocates in Scotland"

I know. This was on Eastern Way in Fareham.

#38:

"How quickly someone passes their driving test is not necessarily a measure of their driving ability."

Obstensively, no it is not, however, being able to pass a difficult test either straight away or within a few attempts, shows a degree of aptitude for whatever you are being tested in and that can only be of benefit later on.

Regarding your friend, does she really need to drive? If she never goes more than 10 miles away from her home, then maybe she does not---and from what you say it might be better if she didn't!

As well as advocating a limit on the number of attempts at a test, I also advocate the initial test to be made MUCH harder. It should include a knowledge of basic vehicle dynamics, basic vehicle mechanics, basic physics, as well as a comprehensive hazard perception test. Training would also include an awareness of target fixation and would touch on some of the psychological aspects of driving as well.

I think that the current test is FAR too easy to pass and evidence of this is easy to see on our roads every day.
44

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/04/2008 16:56:21
Scoop:

"You broke the law and you got caught. Get over it..."

I am over it thanks.

"...do you have nothing better to do with your time than fight for you "right" to endanger the general public with your irresponsible behavior?"

Not quite. I was only doing what anyone is entitled to do if the so wish. I see it this way. If I am accused of breaking the law then it is encumbant on the authorities to follow other laws to the letter during my prosecution. I am also entitled to copies of any evidence that they plan to use against me and I have the right for my case to be heard before a court.

I'm not "fighting" for anything. Those rights are already enshrined in law and it will be a sad day if they are ever not. ANYONE can do something similar to what the Prof and I did. If more people did it then we would see the back of the unfair, underhand rip-off that is actually costing lives. Then we could go back to traditional methods of policing the roads based upon common sense. We would then see the KSI figures start dropping once more.
45

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 18:36:21
# Malc. So you break the law when YOU consider it safe? That's just the point. Who are you to judge what is safe - and should it just be you that is afforded this privilege? Or should we extend it to 17 year olds with an immortality complex who think they are David Couthard? Where does it end? Personally, I would like the law to protect me from speeding motorists - just as it is meant to protect me from other law-breakers.

Your argument is effectively to abolish speed limits - which is fair enough but don't argue for non-enforcement of the ones that we currently have.
46

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 18:38:40
48 HO. Speed cameras cost lives? Can't wait to hear the argument on that one.
47

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 18:47:57
#46 Prof. Has your argument dried up to the extent that you want to get into a "my c*ck is bigger than your c*ck" debate. You site your "contribution" as the taxes that you pay! So if the tax authorities stood no chance of catching you - you'd still send them a cheque- for the public good of course.

Face it - you are a law breaker who thinks nothing of endangering the lives of others so that you can reclaim a few precious minutes of YOUR precious life.

For the record - on the lawyers / advocate point that you try to make. I would bet that the crown did not "represent themselves" while entertaining your ego during your day in court.
48

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 18:50:14
Quite simply that as the government is funding Teletraffics Ltd (the manufacturer of the LTI) and other manufacturers in the provision and service of flawed technologies, as well as the HR and services cost of safety partnerships, then they are at the same time, reducing the operational budgets for manned police traffic patrols.

Now, to give them some due, the Safety Partnerships have recently decided to spend some of the fine money on programmes other than speeding, pass plus etc. But in the main their budgets are costed to pay for skulls, technology, self promotion and overtime.

A manned police patrol can cover a multitude of tasks including catching careless, dangerous, drunk, driving etc and are trained constables of the law with the right of arrest.

In short the government's funding of the partnerships are reducing the budgets of other REAL police activities that does cost lives.
49

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 18:56:14
"#46 Prof. Has your argument dried up to the extent that you want to get into a "my c*ck is bigger than your c*ck" debate. You site your "contribution" as the taxes that you pay! So if the tax authorities stood no chance of catching you - you'd still send them a cheque- for the public good of course."

WHAT! TIME FOR YOUR BED I THINK!

"For the record - on the lawyers / advocate point that you try to make. I would bet that the crown did not "represent themselves" while entertaining your ego during your day in court."

AGAIN, WHAT!

For the record the PF decided to drag it out on three seperate days pulling in 5 (YES THATS FIVE) Prosecution witnesses (IMO was overkill, they only needed two) at their expense. The Crown was represented at over 8/9 Intermediate Diets and 5 Trial Diests by their own team.

Some may think that their tactics was to win at all costs after they fluffed up the first Kloss Trial. I couldn't possibly comment :-)
50

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 18:56:15
52# So you are arguing for increased police funding - not against speed cameras? Then I'm on your side.

PS: If Teletraffics is the great satan - then if people did not speed (break the law) - there would be no funds, their revenue would dry up and they would go bust. The solution is in your hands
51

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 19:04:57
From Motor Cycle News 7-2-2007:-

Speed Gun maker admits to flaws under oath, he says laser guns could
give incorrect readings - just as we proved in tests last year.

BY STEVE FARRELL

A SPEED camera boss has finally admitted that his equipment is capable of getting speeds wrong if guidelines are not strictly followed.

Frank Garratt, owner of Tele- Traffic UK Ltd, which makes the laser speed detector, finally acknowledged errors similar to those we highlighted last year when we used an LTI20.20 to get a reading of 40mph for a stationary bike.
Garratt acknowledged four ways the devices could be wrong:

He admitted they could exaggerate a vehicle's speed if they are not held steadily and the laser beam slips along the side of the vehicle - a phenomena known as "slip effect". Presented with evidence of an incorrect reading of 36mph for a vehicle travelling 29mph, he said: "This was probably slip effect off the side of the vehicle." He accepted the argument that if the laser beam was not aligned with the crosshair in the view finder, used by operators to target vehicles, then the speed of the wrong vehicle 'could be measured, In response to the argument, put by defence barrister Katherine Hodson, he said: "In strict academic theory, you're right, yes," He said operators must regularly check the crosshair is aligned with the centre of the beam to eliminate the potential for the wrong vehicle to be picked up, He said: "The salient point there is that the device should be properly aligned," . He admitted that where two vehicles fell within the spread of the laser beam, the device could pick up the speed of the nearer one even when aimed at the furthest one. Hodson said: "Let me put it this way, Mr Garratt, if two vehicles were travelling down the road within the range of the beam spread... it is possible that even if the officer aimed for the vehicle furthest away the device would lock on to the nearest vehicle." Garratt replied: "There are two principles...
52

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 19:05:06
53# If your best reply is "time for your bed" - I hope that your intended career in law is more to do with fleecing the house buying public, than reasoned debate in a court of law.
53

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 19:06:24
Garratt replied: "There are two principles... in broad principle I agree with it." In MCN tests last March we aimed an LTI20.20 at a stationary bike and the device consistendy picked up the speed of a passing car instead.

Garratt admitted the beam could be reflected off one vehicle and measure the speed of another. He said this would not happen if the beam struck a number plate but admitted it was possible with more irregular surfaces. His Honour Judge Woolman suggested it was more likely to happen with "angled polished surfaces" and Garratt responded: "Yes, indeed." Bikes are often targeted by the lasers from the front, where there are only different angled polished surfaces and no number plate. Garratt claimed an incorrect reading would only be obtained where the vehicle being targeted was stationary.

Garratt insisted the errors could only occur where the device was not operated according to guidelines set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the manufacturers. He said:

'''Like any device, unless it's operated within the 'prescribed parameters it may well not perform in the way that you would expect it to do." Garratt's cross examination was at Presion Crown Court on January 19, 2007.

Garratt declined to speak to MCN.
54

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 19:10:32
"52# So you are arguing for increased police funding - not against speed cameras? Then I'm on your side."

Doesn't that make you a known associate of a criminal then? :-))))))) LOL
55

john z,

edinburgh 10/04/2008 20:32:49
Actually, Fife police were challenged by the ASA, for using the slogan, speed cameras save lives. As you know, if you make any kind of claim in an advertisement, you need to be able to show data to confirm it. Ultimately, it took Fife safety camera partnership a long time (many many months) to find any reliable data to support the claim. In fact, if I remember, correctly, the second year of the safety camera partnerships in Fife, saw a marked increase in fatalities. The acutal decision by the ASA went in their favour (via some very dubious data from London), but it was close, and actually went to appeal.

The reality is, that claims such as 'speed cameras save lives' are no more than slogans, based upon highly dubious, and statistically erroneous data.

Next time you see a silly advertisement claiming something about speed cameras, refer it to the ASA, and watch the safety camera partnerships squirm.

The problem is, that actually analysing data on speed camera effects is incredibly difficult, due to a phenomenon called regression to the mean. This is why we see claims like, '60% drop in accidents at speed camera sites' (see article above). Ask a statistician, and they'll tell you, the same result can be achieved 'at camera sites' by doing nothing at all. It is a statistical effect, and nothing else.

We are indebted to the late Paul Smith of safe speed for exposing the lies around speed cameras.

Just don't believe the lies.
56

geekpie,

forfar 10/04/2008 20:46:36
Get this, rest of the world. In Scotland, they paint speed cameras in fluorescent stripes so they're really easy to see!!! That's right: by some twisted logic, they make speed cameras easy to see!!! And they let the AA publish atlases that show where the cameras are!!! And yet there are still some drivers out there who get caught by them!!!!!! They must be really bad drivers!
57

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 22:24:59
59 John

Yes, well said.

Paul Smith RIP

As for fife safety camera partnership, their Programme Manager (now departed from fife constabulary) actually put in writing that by signing the S172 form was not an admission of guilt....

Oh yea it was! and as predicted the pf held it aloof in court and asked the operator whose named was signed on the form (mine of course).

I then asked him what it had written beside it (it was a reference to the programme manager stating that signing the form was not an admission of guilt.

Wha Wha....... foot, bang, hole in foot.
58

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 22:47:31
#58 Prof.

I would deny it in court and get off on a technicality - just like you!

:-)
59

Marky Bhoy,

Dunfermline 10/04/2008 23:01:15

Reading this I am so gutted
60

Professor22,

lochgelly 10/04/2008 23:27:06
Ure missing the point scoop.

My case was lost because:

- The Sheriff wanted evidence led by the chief inspector of ACPOS that it required TWO videod calibration checks (BTW They do NOW do TWO video checks).
- The Sheriff honestly wanted me to cite Home Office Minister Hazel Blears to defend her statements recording in Hansards over the use of these cameras.
- Because the trial was delayed that day, I would have to cite the Camera Partnership Manager again (Sheriff Officer Cititaion - £50 plus witness expenses) AND
- I was dealing, at that time, with the demise of my mother's health, who passed away a month after the trial.

I chucked the towel in after 20 months. That won't happen a second time. Getting the Video Tape is paramount to any scientific investigation and I would recommend to anyone to go the high court to get it.

Guess what, next time I would have no issue in citing the home office minister and the chief inspector of ACPOS as witnesses to lead evidence.
61

Scoop in the City,

10/04/2008 23:47:05
Don't think I am Prof.
Suggest that you slow down, relax, enjoy life a little more - save yourself all that hassle. Just think how much of your time that this all has cost you - just to save a couple of minutes off your journey. Is this making any sense to you - or are you a lost cause?
62

Professor22,

lochgelly 11/04/2008 00:09:28
Scoop

Actually, you missed the point again.

The 20 months in the court room decided that, as I turned 40, I was fed up being an IT Executive, and i am now half way through my first year in Law.

The injustice of the system made me turn from capitalist to someone that wants to give back to society.

And BTW the day of my alleged speeding was a casual drive to halfords on a sunday morning to pickup a new lightbulb. Wasnt in a rush to go anyware!
63

truthsleuth,

another driver fed up with the idiots. 11/04/2008 01:00:55
As usual the petrolheads twist and turn to prove their case.
The facts are
1. Speed Kills
2. Anything that causes(forces) the petrolheads to reduce their speed saves accidents.
the sdame people defend the indefensible as they shouted and moaned about drink drive, safety belts etc etc.
For crying out loud why can't they admit to themselves they just like to drive fast and claim they are the good drivers.

The biggest fools are always the fools who don't know they are fools.
The trouble is with these lot their stupidity results in others losing their freedom completely so that they can ignore the speed limits.

64

Scoop in the City,

11/04/2008 07:53:36
Prof - You want to give back to society so you decide to become a lawyer???? Pull the other one.
65

Bill Whitehead,

11/04/2008 08:24:22
All the time both sides of the pro and anti camera debate have been waging war on each other, the rest of us watch with concern about the absence of so many qualified traffic police and the sharp rise in fatal hit and run accidents associated with various illegal driving activities such as drink drive, drug drive, no license, driving while banned, joy riding or simply stolen vehicles which aren't being addressed, because all we've got left is a rag tag collection of aging polaroid cameras where we once had a proud police force now almost totally missing from our roads.

You said it right truthsleuth The biggest fools are always the fools who don't know they are fools.
66

Scoop in the City,

11/04/2008 08:56:58
69 Bill - So you would agree that the campaign should be for more traffic police, rather than against speed cameras? The two are NOT mutually exclusive - but the anti-camera / speeder lobby seem to pitch this line up all the time. I think that it to try and make otherwise law abiding citizens, feel better about themselves "they should be catching REAL criminals".
More traffic police, more speed cameras, heavier fines / longer bans = safer roads.

What it is about people that when they caught breaking the law, that they are so indignant about paying the fine? Shoplifters are caught by cameras every day and no one squeals, yet I can't recall reading about many people dying as a result of pilfering 20 B&H.


67

Bill Whitehead,

11/04/2008 09:27:10
70: Scoop in the City.

Of course I agree there should be far more police on the streets today, speed cameras are inadeqaute to the task and there are superior, more efficient and cost effective solutions available today.

As reported in Wales, they've retreated on camera effectivness as a visible deterant to a point where they've taken to hiding them in horse boxes which is hardly a well thought out way of spending money on wages when that operator could be a qualified traffic officer instead of a well meaning civilian.

I think any pro or anti speed camera argument is irrelevant as concentrating on wether just one method of traffic calming and wether or not it works has lead us up this cul de sac.

Lets not forget, speed cameras are nothing more than a traffic calming device and not even very effective when you can read on government websites acknowledgment about the effects of 'surfing', even the authorities warn not to consider them as anything more.

Until the bean counters get to grips with the fact that the only people who believe cameras work, is the PR dept of the camera partnerships who're probably more concerned about keeping their job to pay their mortgage than road safety, this neglegent attitude to what government consider more serious offences than speeding will continue.
68

Bill Whitehead,

12/04/2008 17:58:10
By the way, I think the idea of an Anti camera/speeder lobby has been one of the main problems, because I think you'll find if you go back and read many posts on newspaper article blogs without the prebiased opinion of who those views are coming from, you'll find the larger percentage are not advocating speeding, but are simply depressed at being surrounded by bad and dangerous driving every single day, watching the roads around them deteriorating and authority choosing not to listen content that the only people who're complaining are those who're alledgedly loosing their so called freedom.

Just because a law is passed, doesn't mean it is infalable, from my point of view, speed cameras are clearly a modern day version of the 'Emporers New Clothes'.

(For those of you who don't know, the Emporers New Clothes is a fable about a couple of crooked tailers who through a combination of conmanship and fake claims, manage to sell the gulible Emporer a suit made of such fine yarn, that it is so soft you can't feel it and so fine you can't see it, for an enormous sum of money. Until one day, a little boy who hasn't heard all the hype is watching the Emporers parade through the streets and points out the Emporer is actually naked.)

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.